| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2011 07:47:52 PM · #676 |
| Neither here nor there but somewhat relevant to position. A woman I ride with is vehemently opposed to any government intervention which would limit personal freedoms (this came about because of some of the German rules, like no mowing on Sundays and don't let your car idle idly.) But she wholeheartedly supports CC&Rs and HOA rules that prevent someone painting their house purple with pink polka dots, if she lives in that neighborhood.... |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 09:06:10 PM · #677 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Fine, prove it. Take any moral proposition you like and prove that it is objectively true or correct independent of culture or opinion. Meanwhile I'll go make popcorn. |
I can think of two.
Cannibalism is immoral. We pretty much agreed on that after the late Paleolithic. It beings with killing another person, and ends in Kuru or Piron diseases. While it has existed in pockets and is still practiced by the odd Peruvian air crash survivor or stone age tribes in New Guinea, it is widely seen as the most basic taboo. Many people hold that the origin of certain cultures labeling pork as unclean, is that it tastes so much like human flesh.
Incest is immoral. While the taboo gets flexed in the case of Royalty, it is a universal taboo. The risks of congenital birth defects and ick factor are very high. Unless you really like the Hapsburg lip. And hemophilia. And really big ears.
Most moral positions have a roots in practical reasoning, however often when it gets codified in religious texts, it is difficult to shift the moral view point when those practical reasons are no longer present.
Message edited by author 2011-03-19 21:06:52. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:09:49 PM · #678 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Cannibalism is immoral. We pretty much agreed on that after the late Paleolithic. |
Key words: "agreed on." Muslims agree that eating with your left hand is wrong, too. A cultural taboo is not an independent statement of objective truth. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:12:14 PM · #679 |
| Obama has really big ears. I wonder if that is why his birth certificate is being kept hidden? |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:32:33 PM · #680 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Obama has really big ears. I wonder if that is why his birth certificate is being kept hidden? |
You mean This one |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:33:36 PM · #681 |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:43:37 PM · #682 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
No, the original one. |
I don't see anyone asking for Jesus' birth certificate ... :-( |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:45:27 PM · #683 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
No, the original one. |
Right. From the same link: "Nevermind that Obama's birth certificate was certified as genuine by the state of Hawaii or that it's on the Internet or that the local hospital has confirmed his birth or that his birth notice was in both Honolulu papers a day after he was born. (A look at FactCheck.org or Snopes.com confirms all of this.) In Birther World, everyone's in on the cover-up, including fact-checking websites, and until Obama "produces" his birth certificate, he's an alien. It's a no-win situation, and the administration has wisely avoided engaging these morons... It's pretty nutty stuff, but there always have been loonies and conspiracy theorists among us. It's a proud American tradition. So if some whackos want to believe that a Honolulu hospital and two newspapers were somehow in on a conspiracy to falsify a child's birth announcement in 1961, there's not much any of us can do about it." |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:50:15 PM · #684 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So if some whackos want to believe that a Honolulu hospital and two newspapers were somehow in on a conspiracy to falsify a child's birth announcement in 1961, there's not much any of us can do about it." |
If he was born in Kenya, how could the hospital and newspapers in Hawai'i have possibly known (or cared) about it? |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:54:39 PM · #685 |
| All this does not change the fact he has big ears. Now that you have called me a moron, a whacko and a loonie is it OK if I call you a shithead? |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 12:05:32 AM · #686 |
Can I ask you to lay out the requirements ahead of time?
"I will accept moral statement A is objectively true if X,Y, and Z are satisfied."
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 02:09:55. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 01:26:21 AM · #687 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Key words: "agreed on." Muslims agree that eating with your left hand is wrong, too. A cultural taboo is not an independent statement of objective truth. |
If you look closely they usually relate. Most Arabians do not use toilet paper. If you eat your feces, you get sick. So you eat with your right hand, clean yourself with water and your left hand, and watch what you touch with your left hand the rest of the time. There are cultural taboos that make no sense to me, it usually means that I don't have enough information. Given enough information, they are almost always predicated on objective reasoning, though as the taboo often outlives its reason for existence. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 02:18:44 AM · #688 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If you look closely they usually relate. Most Arabians do not use toilet paper. |
So then you agree that's a cultural norm rather than an independent truth? Most people around here DO use toilet paper, so there's nothing objectively wrong with eating left-handed. It's just a convention of Arabian society. An independent truth would be just as correct in Ohio as Oman (regardless of era or culture), and clearly this isn't.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 02:19:28. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 04:34:36 AM · #689 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Most Arabians do not use toilet paper. |
They use water and probably feel that it's slightly immoral to walk around with a shitty arsehole. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 12:03:12 PM · #690 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If you look closely they usually relate. Most Arabians do not use toilet paper. |
So then you agree that's a cultural norm rather than an independent truth? Most people around here DO use toilet paper, so there's nothing objectively wrong with eating left-handed. It's just a convention of Arabian society. An independent truth would be just as correct in Ohio as Oman (regardless of era or culture), and clearly this isn't. |
So is this all we're looking for? A truth or falsehood that is true or false everywhere? Do we get to ignore the "mental patient" as you did above with PETA? |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 02:59:25 PM · #691 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's just a convention of Arabian society. An independent truth would be just as correct in Ohio as Oman (regardless of era or culture), and clearly this isn't. |
You say "just" a convention as if that puts it in a secondary class of truth, because it is not true in all places and all times. Frankly after traveling in Arabia for some time, I try to eat only with my right hand. Not for religious reasons, but because it became clear to me that not doing so increased my risk certain disease vectors. The fact that this hygienic practice is not practiced in the west does not mean that the risks we court are not scientifically factual. Talk to a gastroenterologist some time on how effective toilet paper is or how superior squat toilets are to our seated style of toilet. You will wash your hands more carefully thereafter.
The codification of the don't eat with the hand you wipe with rule into left hand bad, right hand good forever and always,is unfortunate. It does not take into account the fact that eleven percent of people are born left handed and would be better served to reverse the cultural norm. However since the Qur'an states which hand ought to be dominant, a whole bunch of people have a harder life for no societal good.
So we have here a cultural taboo which has later been proven to have a scientific basis, and while not universally observed it is a sound guide to try to live by, but in being coded in to a religious frame work has lost its logical reasoning and become capricious in its application.
At this point I wish we had picked a less scatalogical example.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2011 03:43:28 PM · #692 |
Ok, I'll offer up one. Two, in fact. The first is an objective truth. The second is an objective falsehood.
"Sometimes stealing is wrong."
"One ought never to share."
I'm guessing the first objection is going to be the general nature of the statements, but this does not make them non-objective. Virtually all people of all cultures would agree with the first statement and disagree with the second. In other words, no society exists in which no limitations are placed on stealing. One cannot steal whatever from whomever whenever they want. Likewise no society would feel that sharing is an action which does not have good in some siutation.
The second objection, I'm guessing is the nebulous nature of the statements, but this does not prevent them from being an objective truth or falsehood. "Sometimes water is a liquid." is a scientific objective truth, and, in fact, is more accurate than "Water is a liquid."
I am hoping against hope that the goalposts will not now be moved.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 15:47:48. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 03:50:19 PM · #693 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You say "just" a convention as if that puts it in a secondary class of truth, because it is not true in all places and all times. |
Yes, that rules out the objectively correct requirement. They aren't using a particular hand because it's inherently "correct," but because society tells them it's correct. Arabs could just as easily declare the opposite hand to be moral for each function and achieve the same result. The earth orbits the sun no matter what society or culture says (it's objectively true), but the taboo you describe is a consequence of cultural tradition rather than an independent truth.
Religious prohibitions against certain foods work the same way. Eating pork and shellfish is considered morally wrong if you're Kosher. The risk of trichinosis or botulism may have been the rational basis for declaring these animals "unclean," but only because safe handling and germ theory were unknown at the time. These days you're far more likely to encounter e. coli from ground beef or salmonella from chicken than trichinosis, so is there really any objective reason to consider the consumption of clams or bacon immoral? No, it's just an ancient tradition. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 04:42:14 PM · #694 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Sometimes stealing is wrong." |
Great, let's just stick a "sometimes" in front of each of the 10 Commandments and they will all be correct! I shouldn't have to point out that you're using "sometimes" here as a red herring to dodge having to prove an objective truth. Would you say sometimes the earth orbits the sun? Water is always a liquid... in other phases it becomes ice or steam, not water (and in any event, phases change can be objectively verified). The "virtually all people" claim is your old buddy the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Virtually all people of all cultures used to believe that total eclipses were evil omens portending certain doom, so that must also be true.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"One ought never to share." |
This is objectively false even if nebulous? I suppose you could get more mileage out of a condom or insulin needle that way, but ewwww. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 05:15:50 PM · #695 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ok, I'll offer up one. Two, in fact. The first is an objective truth. The second is an objective falsehood.
"Sometimes stealing is wrong."
"One ought never to share." |
The first would be true depending on the environment you grew up in.
In my youth, taking a shovel that was not being used was not considered wrong... as long as you eventually returned it... Ergo.. taking something that was not yours was NOT viewed as a crime in itself. Actually, the action was not considered a theft as such.
With regard to sharing... that also is false. One had an obligation to ensure that if ill that they did not "Share" the disease with the rest of the people in their environment. However, this does not hold true when it comes to the harvesting of crops, the bounties of the hunt, or the sharing of fish (Mind you, we didn't have anyone who could multipy them like some folks), sharing was indeed at the forefront, if only to ensure that loved ones continued to thrive.
Mores are the product of the environment one lives in...........period.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 18:05:30. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:11:01 PM · #696 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...So we have here a cultural taboo which has later been proven to have a scientific basis, |
Really now... so in essence what you are advocating here (which of course can be proven scientifically) is that individuals that adhere to this process are healthier than say everyone in Europe or North America that do not practice this.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 07:25:35 PM · #697 |
Wow, don't know how we got to Obama's ears.
I thought an atheists (who profess science as their religion) could better explain how humans are more valuable than animals with something more than "because" or some theory on tribe mentality. Or did I miss it?
Maybe I should've asked that instead of my boy and dog drowning scenario.
Using science and a belief not based on supernatural being, can an atheist show that humans are more valuable than animals? Or maybe we just aren't. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 08:00:58 PM · #698 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Wow, don't know how we got to Obama's ears.
I thought an atheists (who profess science as their religion) could better explain how humans are more valuable than animals with something more than "because" or some theory on tribe mentality. Or did I miss it?
Maybe I should've asked that instead of my boy and dog drowning scenario.
Using science and a belief not based on supernatural being, can an atheist show that humans are more valuable than animals? Or maybe we just aren't. |
Science is not my religion. I have no religion. Can I prove a person is more valuable than a dog? Probably not, but it may depend on what you mean by valuable. Everyone and everything is valuable to someone. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 08:15:53 PM · #699 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ok, I'll offer up one. Two, in fact. The first is an objective truth. The second is an objective falsehood.
"Sometimes stealing is wrong."
"One ought never to share." |
The first would be true depending on the environment you grew up in.
In my youth, taking a shovel that was not being used was not considered wrong... as long as you eventually returned it... Ergo.. taking something that was not yours was NOT viewed as a crime in itself. Actually, the action was not considered a theft as such.
With regard to sharing... that also is false. One had an obligation to ensure that if ill that they did not "Share" the disease with the rest of the people in their environment. However, this does not hold true when it comes to the harvesting of crops, the bounties of the hunt, or the sharing of fish (Mind you, we didn't have anyone who could multipy them like some folks), sharing was indeed at the forefront, if only to ensure that loved ones continued to thrive.
Mores are the product of the environment one lives in...........period.
Ray |
I think you miss the point Ray. In whatever culture you were speaking about with the shovel, would you say that there were instances where stealing was wrong? (even though you point out an instance where stealing was considered ok) If so, it remains objectively true.
Really, I chose to phrase it the way I did because it was simplest. The objective truth is that no society has ever had no limitations on taking something that doesn't belong to you. As I said, no society ever has condoned the idea that you can take whatever from whomever whenever you want. There have always been restrictions.
The sharing is the same, but opposite. We can think of instances not to share, but we cannot point out a society that says we should never share under all circumstances.
We can view it another way. What society in what period of time, when asked "Do you think stealing is sometimes wrong?" would answer "no"? What society in what period of time, when asked "Do you think you should never share?" would answer "yes"?
Let's review Shannon's original challenge: Take any moral proposition you like and prove that it is objectively true or correct independent of culture or opinion.
My moral proposition is that "Stealing is sometimes wrong". I claim it is objectively true because we cannot find an instance of a society where this is not held.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 20:20:48. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 08:20:19 PM · #700 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Can I prove a person is more valuable than a dog? Probably not, but it may depend on what you mean by valuable. Everyone and everything is valuable to someone. |
Compare throroughbred stud fees to sperm-bank donor stipends for example ...
Question: why should "science be able to "prove" a person more (or less) "valuable" than some "lesser animal" anyway? "Value" is not one of the concepts science addresses, it is purely the province of the political establishment and insurance actuaries. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 02:43:54 PM EDT.
