| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2005 12:03:29 AM · #76 |
Explain how quantum physics deduces that or give us a source. Sounds like Pat Robertson on Sci-Fi.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:05:42 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by jsas:
All truth and all right and wrong is subjective? Then what do you believe? That sounds like a merry-go-round to me. =) |
Yes. The truth is the truth at that moment to that person in that place and it is only relevent then. The truth changes.
For instance. Mary just got a call from the hospital. They tell her her husband is dead. For her, that is the truth. She find out at the hospital it was her husbands brother and her husband is okay. Now her truth changes.
I believe one should treat people how one would like to be treated. If everyone treated each other with love, respect and admiration society would be much better.
I believe that sitting in judgement of others leads only to negative emotions on both sides.
I believe I have no right to force my moral and ethic beliefs on others nor should I look down on them if they fall.
I believe truth is irrevelent when more than one person is involved.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:06:45 AM · #78 |
| I think you meant "quantum leap"? +) cyclops out! |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:09:26 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by jsas:
All truth and all right and wrong is subjective? Then what do you believe? That sounds like a merry-go-round to me. =) |
Yes. The truth is the truth at that moment to that person in that place and it is only relevent then. The truth changes.
For instance. Mary just got a call from the hospital. They tell her her husband is dead. For her, that is the truth. She find out at the hospital it was her husbands brother and her husband is okay. Now her truth changes.
I believe one should treat people how one would like to be treated. If everyone treated each other with love, respect and admiration society would be much better.
I believe that sitting in judgement of others leads only to negative emotions on both sides.
I believe I have no right to force my moral and ethic beliefs on others nor should I look down on them if they fall.
I believe truth is irrevelent when more than one person is involved. |
I do to but all you just said is not going to happen because we have two sides. +( cyclops is sad. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:10:21 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Yes. The truth is the truth at that moment to that person in that place and it is only relevent then. The truth changes.
For instance. Mary just got a call from the hospital. They tell her her husband is dead. For her, that is the truth. She find out at the hospital it was her husbands brother and her husband is okay. Now her truth changes. |
The universal truth that her husband's brother was dead never changed though. There ARE universal truths - the brother was dead being one of them. It's a fact that he's dead. She had a fact wrong. People can be wrong or misinformed, but the facts don't change to suit her truth.
Originally posted by dahkota:
I believe that sitting in judgement of others leads only to negative emotions on both sides. |
I believe judgment leads to better decision making and most progress. What if the guy who invented the candle was never challenged, never judged? We wouldn't have a lightbulb - there'd be no need for it.
Originally posted by dahkota:
I believe truth is irrevelent when more than one person is involved. |
This scares me - that sort of thought. I don't understand it at all. People bring their own experiences, but there is still right, wrong, fact, and opinion.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:14:10 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find the origin or basis for morality to be the fascinating and complicated part. Graphicfunk's post, for example, hides intricasies. One one hand he is very situational..."to apply axioms and concepts to everything equally is also wrong"...but on the other he is very absolute..."those who examine these intricasies must be objective judges with no agenda but that of pure truth"
I find it easy to claim an absolute basis for morality in God. I find it fascinating how difficult it is to ground morality otherwise. (And I'm not necessarily talking about the Judeo-Christian God, but rather a deity in general).
Do you believe in the "pure truth" you spoke of 'funk? Is it ultimately grounded in a deity? If not, what is it founded upon? |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, your argument is good but consider the following: The secular believe that they can find a moral compass as well as ethical behaviour without a GOD. I believe this argument to be true. Pure truth has been the pursuit of the wisemen throughout the ages.
Consider your actions: you do a good deed and you feel you are doing nothing more than what you would like others to do to you. You accumulate within you the total sum of all of your actions and there is a corner where you file away that which you considered wrong. there is a conscience that guides all thinking creatures. Those that refuse to listen to it lose their way.
This has nothing to do with belief in a GOD. Yes, you can believe that there is a GOD and that GOD equals goodness and then your job is to find and live by this goodness. Also, you can believe in the light of truth and that the light is pure and hence good and that you want to live by the light instead of the darkness.
In other words there are many path to the same pinacle or apex of truth. Certain conditions are beyond comprehension but everyman lives by his convictions. It is therefore imperative that the search for truth guides this convictions otherwise we become wishy washy and we turn on the dime with the next voice that wins us over.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:15:55 AM · #82 |
| Isn't the whole idea on DPC to grow as photogs? How do we do that? Challenges and comments, you decide to rise or fall. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:27:03 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
There is no relief because if it should have been a socialist state, then there would not be the resources for the state to advance the discovery and manufature of drugs to the paramount manner in which America does. |
I think this is a false assumption. Unmitigated greed is not the only incentive to scientific inquiry and technological advancement.
I think the basic issue is does anyone feel as if there is "some limit" to the amount someone who controls a necessary resource is allowed to profit from it, thus laws against price-fixing, loan-sharking/usury, "price-gouging," and remedies such as the windfall-profits tax currently being considered for the oil companies.
Consider the law of eminent domain, where the governement can take your property for the benefit of society as a whole, while paying you "fair market value" for it -- you're not allowed to demand they buy your house for $38 billion dollars (unless you're Bill Gates). |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:36:49 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Well, your argument is good but consider the following: The secular believe that they can find a moral compass as well as ethical behaviour without a GOD. I believe this argument to be true. Pure truth has been the pursuit of the wisemen throughout the ages.
Consider your actions: you do a good deed and you feel you are doing nothing more than what you would like others to do to you. You accumulate within you the total sum of all of your actions and there is a corner where you file away that which you considered wrong. there is a conscience that guides all thinking creatures. Those that refuse to listen to it lose their way.
This has nothing to do with belief in a GOD. Yes, you can believe that there is a GOD and that GOD equals goodness and then your job is to find and live by this goodness. Also, you can believe in the light of truth and that the light is pure and hence good and that you want to live by the light instead of the darkness.
In other words there are many path to the same pinacle or apex of truth. Certain conditions are beyond comprehension but everyman lives by his convictions. It is therefore imperative that the search for truth guides this convictions otherwise we become wishy washy and we turn on the dime with the next voice that wins us over. |
The point where the rubber hits the road is when two people meet who do not agree on a moral action. What does one secular person point to in an attempt to convince the other of his point of view? It is very rare that we simply say "to hell with your view", but rather we say, "your view is wrong because..."
The deist can point to God as his ultimate measuring stick, but I don't understand what the secularist points to... |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:40:06 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
In other words there are many path to the same pinacle or apex of truth. Certain conditions are beyond comprehension but everyman lives by his convictions. It is therefore imperative that the search for truth guides this convictions otherwise we become wishy washy and we turn on the dime with the next voice that wins us over. |
Ahhhh Sri Ramakrishna! :) Now this, I believe.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:43:14 AM · #86 |
The diest can point to God just as the secularist can point to his dog. Pointing to anything doesn't validate the argument nor make it more true.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:47:45 AM · #87 |
Where I come from, medical professionals were taking the Oath of Hippocrates. Does the same apply here - is there any moral value in the acts of medical professionals that break their own oath? Is the only reason someone practices medicine or does a pharmaceutical research the money they can get out of it?
We all may have to ask ourselves the same question, not hypothetically, but realistically: US was late to order vaccine for (against) bird flu. The only manufacturer that can legally manufacture it cannot make the necessary quantities in time.
To bring us back on track try answering the following two questions:
as an owner of intellectual property (i.e. formula for the cure), would you share it with 3-4 other pharmaceutical companies so that US population can have the cure available
as a citizen, would you condone pharmaceutical companies 'borrowing' the patented formula and save a couple of million lives.
If our civil rights can be curbed to protect us from terrorism, can the corporations be hurt a bit to protect humanity? |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:51:48 AM · #88 |
| I think the moral breakdown occurs when profits are put before human life |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:52:58 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by stormy:
I think the moral breakdown occurs when profits are put before human life |
what is done by the pharmacist with those profits?
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 00:53:13.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:55:46 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by stormy:
I think the moral breakdown occurs when profits are put before human life |
what is done by the pharmacist with those profits? |
Car, house? I don't know.
But I do know that some drugs are way overpriced. If costs are covered and some profit is made, why is that not enough? |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:57:13 AM · #91 |
I had this same question posed to me in a class as well. (Just as an aside, this was the same class where the prof would give an exam, and if you missed anything on the test, you could make an appointment with him and "discuss" your rationale, and he would give you credit--regardless. What a joke. Of course, it was called "Thinking, Reasoning, and Expressing" so perhaps there was some validity to his madness. I made an "A".;) )>
Back to the question.
The man stole the medicine. That is wrong. I believe that the local Ford dealer is overcharging, and though I have part of the price, I can't make that an excuse to steal it, even if I need it to rush my son to the hospital for life-saving treatment. (Okay, I concede, that is a "pushing-it" analogy, but I'm sleepy, so . . .)
Do I condone his actions? No, absolutely not, but neither do I "condemn" him. I imagine given the parameters as they are given, I might even be tempted (or more) to do the same thing. But, it would still be wrong.
If this man were caught, brought to trial and I was on the jury, I would probably be the one saying, "Okay, find him guilty and fine him $1000." or something like that.
Of course, I'm neither pharmacist, husband, lawyer, or philosopher, so ymmv. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:58:08 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
The diest can point to God just as the secularist can point to his dog. Pointing to anything doesn't validate the argument nor make it more true. |
True, but you can understand how an ultimate source of the universe would be a possible ultimate source for good/bad. You can't by the same token, understand why Sparky, the German Shepherd, would possess such authority.
I'm certainly not saying the deist can't point at God and be incorrect because a) God doesn't exist or b) the deist misunderstands God's morality. It's a distinct possibility. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:59:21 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by stormy:
I think the moral breakdown occurs when profits are put before human life |
what is done by the pharmacist with those profits? |
They make more drugs to make more profits. So they can pimp their products to the doctors. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:59:48 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
what is done by the pharmacist with those profits? |
I don't know. Take a look at e.g. Merck's financial report: (taken from etrade.com):
ANNUAL INCOME STATEMENT
In Millions of U.S. Dollars (except for per share items)
Fiscal Period 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Period End Date 12/31/04 12/31/03 12/31/02 12/31/01 12/31/00
Update Type Updated Reclassified Reclassified Restated Updated
Update Date 12/31/04 12/31/04 12/31/04 12/31/03 12/31/00
Source 10-K 10-K 10-K 10-K 10-K405
Source Date 03/11/05 03/11/05 03/11/05 03/10/04 03/23/01
Revenue 22,938.6 22,485.9 21,445.8 21,199.0 40,363.2
Total Revenue 22,938.6 22,485.9 21,445.8 21,199.0 40,363.2
Cost of Revenue, Total 4,959.8 4,436.9 4,004.9 3,624.8 22,443.5
Gross Profit 17,978.8 18,049.0 17,440.9 17,574.2 17,919.7
These numbers are calculated after the cost of research has been deducted.
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 01:00:18. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 12:59:58 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
The universal truth that her husband's brother was dead never changed though. There ARE universal truths - the brother was dead being one of them. It's a fact that he's dead. She had a fact wrong. People can be wrong or misinformed, but the facts don't change to suit her truth. |
I disagree here but I think its one of semantics. However, the only universal truth I can think of, which really isn't universal if you think about it, is "I exist." A universal truth is supposed by the idea that as a truth doesn't need to be proven. Even my existence is proven by my thought of existence. But, it is semantics based on one's definition and scope of the word truth.
Originally posted by mavrik:
I believe judgment leads to better decision making and most progress. What if the guy who invented the candle was never challenged, never judged? We wouldn't have a lightbulb - there'd be no need for it. |
I don't see a cause/effect for a candle to a lightbulb. I can see where, if one were to observe another's actions, decide the value of the actions, and decide whether to copy or avoid the same actions could be a judgement call. I was speaking more of a moral judgement - my mind is on the abortion issue right now whith the supreme court playing games... :)
Originally posted by dahkota:
I believe truth is irrevelent when more than one person is involved. |
Originally posted by mavrik:
This scares me - that sort of thought. I don't understand it at all. People bring their own experiences, but there is still right, wrong, fact, and opinion. |
Your experiences and your opinions color your truth. So do circumstances at the moment. Put 10 people in a conveneince store with a robber and ask all 10 to describe him/her and you will get 10 vague and probably conflicting truths. All colored by opinion and experience. To each person, they hold the truth. They were witnesses. Some truths may be more correct that others, closer to reality but each are different. In this case, there may be righter or wronger in description but it was true to those people when they experienced it. Now move to something a little more intangible. Say belief in God. For one person, its a truth, for another, its a lie and the belief in no God is the truth. Who is righter? The one you agree with?
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:04:42 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
The diest can point to God just as the secularist can point to his dog. Pointing to anything doesn't validate the argument nor make it more true. |
True, but you can understand how an ultimate source of the universe would be a possible ultimate source for good/bad. You can't by the same token, understand why Sparky, the German Shepherd, would possess such authority.
|
Well, I've never talked to an ultimate source, but I have talked to a dog. Seriously, in a mothering/birthing kind of thing, if you look at the ultimate source as parent, if you will, then yes. Unless of course your parents are deadbeat bankrobbing crack addicts who sold you for a Harley. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:04:47 AM · #97 |
I cannot understand why the pharmacist (or anyone else) would be surprised that the drug was stolen. The man wanted to save his wife's life. I just do not think it is human nature to let your wife die when you know you can save her (even if you have to do something wrong).
He offered money and to pay the rest later, the pharmacist was unreasonable IMO. The man is not a bad person, he tried to do the right thing by getting all the money he could, and it failed, his next move is obvious.
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 01:06:21. |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:06:16 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Your experiences and your opinions color your truth. So do circumstances at the moment. Put 10 people in a conveneince store with a robber and ask all 10 to describe him/her and you will get 10 vague and probably conflicting truths. All colored by opinion and experience. To each person, they hold the truth. They were witnesses. Some truths may be more correct that others, closer to reality but each are different. In this case, there may be righter or wronger in description but it was true to those people when they experienced it. |
So moving this to a moral question. Are you saying that there are 10 shades of truth to the question "Is rape wrong?" Each person feels differently and to each person this is truth?
It's interesting that you then use the words "righter" or "wronger" in your analogy. Righter implies a "rightest" which implies an ultimate truth (in your case what the robber REALLY did). So we are back to my original question. A deist says, "the rightest morality is the one which perfectly matches the morality of God". A secularist says, "the rightest morality is one which perfectly matches....(I need you to fill in the blank here)" |
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:16:31 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So moving this to a moral question. Are you saying that there are 10 shades of truth to the question "Is rape wrong?" Each person feels differently and to each person this is truth?
It's interesting that you then use the words "righter" or "wronger" in your analogy. Righter implies a "rightest" which implies an ultimate truth (in your case what the robber REALLY did). So we are back to my original question. A deist says, "the rightest morality is the one which perfectly matches the morality of God". A secularist says, "the rightest morality is one which perfectly matches....(I need you to fill in the blank here)" |
To the first question, you would have to have 10 people define rape. Once they all agree on the instances that could be called rape, you can decide if it is right or wrong. Also, using the term rape to begin with is loaded. Add some alternate circumstances here, just like in the OPs question. She said it was rape, he said she consented but now she's mad because he broke up with her. Now who's right and which side is righter?
Righter is a term I used to save myself time. More correct would be better. But no, with regards to truth there isn't necessairly a rightest. Nor is there a wrongist. Both can be equally right or wrong.
...mine. That's the only answer I have. But to say that a God that exists that I might not believe in holds higher moral standards than mine is well, judgement on your part.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2005 01:17:31 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Well, your argument is good but consider the following: The secular believe that they can find a moral compass as well as ethical behaviour without a GOD. I believe this argument to be true. Pure truth has been the pursuit of the wisemen throughout the ages.
Consider your actions: you do a good deed and you feel you are doing nothing more than what you would like others to do to you. You accumulate within you the total sum of all of your actions and there is a corner where you file away that which you considered wrong. there is a conscience that guides all thinking creatures. Those that refuse to listen to it lose their way.
This has nothing to do with belief in a GOD. Yes, you can believe that there is a GOD and that GOD equals goodness and then your job is to find and live by this goodness. Also, you can believe in the light of truth and that the light is pure and hence good and that you want to live by the light instead of the darkness.
In other words there are many path to the same pinacle or apex of truth. Certain conditions are beyond comprehension but everyman lives by his convictions. It is therefore imperative that the search for truth guides this convictions otherwise we become wishy washy and we turn on the dime with the next voice that wins us over. |
The point where the rubber hits the road is when two people meet who do not agree on a moral action. What does one secular person point to in an attempt to convince the other of his point of view? It is very rare that we simply say "to hell with your view", but rather we say, "your view is wrong because..."
The deist can point to God as his ultimate measuring stick, but I don't understand what the secularist points to... |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You behave as you please and you invite all goodness and consequences arising out of your actions. If you are self correcting you make changes to facilitate your journey. There are no ultimate truths that can be proven, but there is a reward for those who place compassion and love in the veins of their lives. A universal thruth is comprehended not by the intellect but by the sum total of that which you are. It is like electricity, you use it and feel it but you comprehend it not. It is like gravity, you study it but comprehend it not. Right and wrong are similar polarities, sometimes, we know beyond a doubt that our actions are either right or wrong but we are unable to determine excatly why. Life is merely interpretation. We get lost in a myriad of different points of views to little avail. Look at the souls that are always in trouble. It seems nothing goes right and then consider that most of them invite the troubles that bury them by living a life where consequence of action is of little importance. They figure why not this instead of that. What is the difference? Merely two schools of thought. So actions have consequence and it is here that one learns to aspire to remain on the side that is good. You can argue that good is a subjective term, yet behave haphazardly and you will pay a price. Now, behaving good will not save you from many external forces, but it will keep you at peace with yourself.
Message edited by author 2005-12-03 01:19:24. |
|
