?s about atheism but were afraid to ask

03/20/2011 08:21:11 PM · #701

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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"?

I believe the Norse Vikings would say no.

03/20/2011 08:22:13 PM · #702

Originally posted by GeneralE:

"Value" is not one of the concepts science addresses...

Don't let Shannon hear you speak such blasphemy. ;P

03/20/2011 08:23:07 PM · #703

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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"?

I believe the Norse Vikings would say no.

You think the Norse Vikings thought it was ok to take things from each other? That taking your neighbor Viking's sword was acceptable action?

03/20/2011 08:25:06 PM · #704

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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"?

I believe the Norse Vikings would say no.

You think the Norse Vikings thought it was ok to take things from each other? That taking your neighbor Viking's sword was acceptable action?

I didn't look up any sources, but I believe stealing was a way of life for them (going from memory on past readings). Though I do believe if they caught you stealing from them they would kill you.

eta: "Viking" was a verb used to describe a temporary lifestyle. Most Norsemen would stay in their villages for all their lives, but some young and adventurous farmers would go "viking" or raiding for some months or for some years to earn their living on piracy.

Therefore, all Vikings were Norse, but not all Norsemen were Vikings.

from here... //www.forvikingsonly.ca/index.cfm/page/4/Brief.html

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 20:28:30.

03/20/2011 08:26:08 PM · #705

Originally posted by Nullix:

I thought an atheists (who profess science as their religion)...

Then you didn't think at all.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Using science and a belief not based on supernatural being, can an atheist show that humans are more valuable than animals?

We already covered this ad nauseum. Humans ARE animals, so that's like asking if apples are more valuable than fruit (duh). Objectively, we're probably no more valuable than your average wombat, but your question isn't an objective one. It's another "science-can't-answer-this-because-there-is-no-correct-answer" matter of subjective conjecture that you'll rationalize as definitively answered by "proper interpretation" of a Roman-era channeler of the gods... which turns out to be no more evidence of fact than your own personal opinion all by itself.

Any intelligent species will naturally tend to look out for its own group first. If two drowning kids consist of a random stranger and your own son, that stranger is probably going under. However, we certainly DO value other life. A town will bring out the fire department and hordes of volunteers with ropes and boats to rescue a deer from a frozen river without even questioning the cost. It makes the front page of the local paper and serves as a feel-good piece for the 11 o'clock news... and then we go back to looking out for ourselves and a hunter shoots the deer a week later. :-/

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/20/2011 08:28:00 PM · #706

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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.

*cough*Somalia*cough*

raish

Olympus C-2500L

03/20/2011 08:29:09 PM · #707

I think the vikings were most concerned with personal honour. If you stole from someone amd they knew it or found out, then you could expect them to exact revenge. They would be dishonourable if they did not exact revenge. A far better idea would be to kill them as well as stealing from them, as you would have done an honourable thing and they would not exact revenge.

03/20/2011 08:31:22 PM · #708

Originally posted by Kelli:

It seems that they are quite comfortable with taking things from outgroups, but you'll have to show me that they felt just as justified taking things from each other. They go out wilding for a while and decide when they come home to do it to their own village because that was just fine? I just don't believe it unless you show me it is as it is.

Wouldn't the idea, as Raish put it, that you would exact "revenge" mean that you felt that you had been "wronged"? You do not exact "revenge" for someone making you dinner or for someone plowing your field.

Shannon likewise will have to elaborate on Somalia.

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 20:35:19.

03/20/2011 08:32:30 PM · #709

Originally posted by Kelli:

I didn't look up any sources, but I believe stealing was a way of life for them (going from memory on past readings). Though I do believe if they caught you stealing from them they would kill you.

...and then steal your stuff. Pirates do this for a living.

03/20/2011 08:34:28 PM · #710

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Kelli:
I didn't look up any sources, but I believe stealing was a way of life for them (going from memory on past readings). Though I do believe if they caught you stealing from them they would kill you.

...and then steal your stuff. Pirates do this for a living.

But they don't steal from each other, or if they did it was met with stiff punishment. Don't you know about the Pirate Code? I just finished reading Treasure Island with the kids. :)

Go wiki Pirate Code. You'll see two examples that specifically mention that you can't steal from another member of the Pirate Company or you would be shot or marooned.

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 20:39:15.

03/20/2011 08:43:44 PM · #711

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Kelli:
I didn't look up any sources, but I believe stealing was a way of life for them (going from memory on past readings). Though I do believe if they caught you stealing from them they would kill you.

...and then steal your stuff. Pirates do this for a living.

But they don't steal from each other, or if they did it was met with stiff punishment. Don't you know about the Pirate Code? I just finished reading Treasure Island with the kids. :)

Go wiki Pirate Code. You'll see two examples that specifically mention that you can't steal from another member of the Pirate Company or you would be shot or marooned.

Found this... The Spartans of ancient Greece and the Dobu of New Guinea believe that stealing is morally right;

from here... //timgier.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pojman-moral-objectivism.pdf

03/20/2011 08:46:42 PM · #712

Originally posted by Kelli:

Found this... The Spartans of ancient Greece and the Dobu of New Guinea believe that stealing is morally right;

from here... //timgier.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pojman-moral-objectivism.pdf

Was that all that it said? I didn't see it explain things. You aren't getting the requirement. We aren't looking for instances where societies have condoned stealing at certain times, but societies where stealing is condoned or allowed at all times.

So for example, are you saying they thought it would be ok to waltz into Sparta's local temple and take something dedicated to their god?

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 20:48:48.

03/20/2011 08:48:31 PM · #713

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:
Found this... The Spartans of ancient Greece and the Dobu of New Guinea believe that stealing is morally right;

from here... //timgier.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pojman-moral-objectivism.pdf

Was that all that it said? I didn't see it explain things. You aren't getting the requirement. We aren't looking for instances where societies have condoned stealing at certain times, but societies where stealing is condoned or allowed at all times.

Well, you already know that's impossible. No two people ever agree on anything, let alone a whole society. ;P

eta: ok, here's some more info on the Dobu people... //www.bigquestionsonline.com/features/morality-without-transcendence

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 20:51:41.

03/20/2011 08:51:53 PM · #714

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:
Found this... The Spartans of ancient Greece and the Dobu of New Guinea believe that stealing is morally right;

from here... //timgier.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pojman-moral-objectivism.pdf

Was that all that it said? I didn't see it explain things. You aren't getting the requirement. We aren't looking for instances where societies have condoned stealing at certain times, but societies where stealing is condoned or allowed at all times.

Well, you already know that's impossible. No two people ever agree on anything, let alone a whole society. ;P

I'm not falling back on that position. I'm sure within Sparta there were generally agreed instances where stealing was wrong. I added above a mention of the local temple. Do you think they would think it was morally good to steal from the local temple?

03/20/2011 08:55:15 PM · #715

I'm guessing the Spartans felt it was morally good to steal from barbarians because they did not deserve their possessions. I don't even know if the idea "Spartans thought stealing was morally good" is true. It's only mentioned in one line of that article, not explained, and not cited.

03/20/2011 08:58:05 PM · #716

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It seems that they are quite comfortable with taking things from outgroups, but you'll have to show me that they felt just as justified taking things from each other.

You're wasting your time. All you can possibly show is that a bunch of people disapprove, not that stealing is objectively incorrect. Does the pirate or viking avoid stealing from his peers because it's inherently wrong or due to the threat of reprisal? Given that he obviously has no compunction about stealing in and of itself (or he'd be in a different line of work), it would have to be the latter. If stealing was wrong independent of society, then no pirate code would have been necessary- it would already be wrong!

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 20:58:58.

03/20/2011 09:22:45 PM · #717

I knew this would be your fallback position.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/20/2011 09:41:47 PM · #718

Originally posted by GeneralE:

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.

Wow, you eat dinner and 50 posts happen.

Because there must me some reason why we are compelled to rescue a boy instead of a dog both drowning?

03/20/2011 09:43:33 PM · #719

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I knew this would be your fallback position.

Pointing out that a code of conduct wouldn't be necessary for something asserted as universally true is a fallback position? I don't have to tell you to obey the laws of gravity. You declare that stealing is objectively "incorrect" in every society and then immediately proceed to inform us that pirates have to be told stealing is wrong. What's wrong with this picture? Do you think that in the absence if such a code, pirates wouldn't steal from each other? Therein lies the difference between objective fact and morality imposed by society. The earth doesn't stop orbiting the sun if society declares it shouldn't, and someone growing up alone on a desert island wouldn't somehow magically know that eating with the left hand is wrong.

03/20/2011 10:53:02 PM · #720

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I knew this would be your fallback position.

Pointing out that a code of conduct wouldn't be necessary for something asserted as universally true is a fallback position? I don't have to tell you to obey the laws of gravity. You declare that stealing is objectively "incorrect" in every society and then immediately proceed to inform us that pirates have to be told stealing is wrong. What's wrong with this picture? Do you think that in the absence if such a code, pirates wouldn't steal from each other? Therein lies the difference between objective fact and morality imposed by society. The earth doesn't stop orbiting the sun if society declares it shouldn't, and someone growing up alone on a desert island wouldn't somehow magically know that eating with the left hand is wrong.

Your original challenge used "objectively" in the sense that the truth transcended different cultures. I understood it this way. Brennan understood it this way. You responded to Brennan in this manner. You responded to me in this manner. Only when a moral proposition was found that actually seemed to fulfill your challenge did you change the understanding of "objectively" to some epistemologic sense. Let me ask once again what I did before and you (naturally) ignored:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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."

And then later I asked:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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?

You did not bother to correct me there either.

Brennan, did you understand Shannon's question to be one of proving that a moral proposition is true independent of human thought or experience?

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 23:10:56.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/20/2011 11:18:41 PM · #721

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here's the post:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Take any moral proposition you like and prove that it is objectively true or correct independent of culture or opinion.

You and Brennan both trotted out examples based on culture, and you even went went so far as to use restrictions imposed by society and the Pirate Code as your evidence. The fact that such rules had to be created is evidence that the proposition is not an objective fact independent of culture or opinion. I don't know why you would ask ME how to prove a construct of belief exists as an objective fact. That's your problem.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/20/2011 11:21:25 PM · #722

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Brennan, did you understand Shannon's question to be one of proving that a moral proposition is true independent of human thought or experience?

I understood Shannon's definition of "independent truth" to be one that transcends location or era. I can not imagine any thought that rises to that level, given an long enough view of the history of mankind. I think we are more likely to discover a unified field theory than a truth that is held to be true by all people for all time. It seemed a little narrow to me.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/20/2011 11:28:39 PM · #723

Originally posted by scalvert:

I don't know why you would ask ME how to prove a construct of belief exists as an objective fact. [/url]

But it IS a construct, a set of postulates set forward to allow communal action. Objective fact is not necessary. Our moral code, our legal code, and even our notion that time moves forward in accord with the watch I keep on my wrist, can not be proven. They are agreed upon constructs, because otherwise when we said the new challenge was up in half an hour would not tell us what we need to know.