| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2008 06:17:39 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I believe in a morality that has truths which are on the same level as the truth of gravity. This means that actions can be called wrong and one person can appeal to this fundamental morality to argue their case. |
If the truth of gravity is a natural law and violence a natural state...you are right...who are we then to first create a society that supports violence against women and then punish them for it. In this particular case, should the judicial system have weighed the heart of the man before punishing the life of the woman?
Practically, speaking...of course...;-) |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 07:46:00 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
@Gordon. I'm trying to argue like a secularist here. It seems to me the "live and let live" policy would take effect. If the tribal bozos of such and such a nation want to kill their women for pretend crimes, then who am I to stop them? At least what moral authority do I have to stop them? Just because my own society considers it to be absurd? |
This topic touches the topic domestic violence and in the most extreme case where a death is involved. In a practical sense, do not we all become a party to the violence (even if not actively involved and/or participating) simply because we globally allow it's presence of violence against women? |
To answer for myself, by all means yes. However, I believe in a morality that has truths which are on the same level as the truth of gravity. This means that actions can be called wrong and one person can appeal to this fundamental morality to argue their case. |
its not really that easy;
the action of putting a knife through someones skull, or burning them to death, could be at once murder, self defense, recklessness negligence, accident, requested suicide, divine intervention, surgery, mercy killing, execution, etc/
much more is relative than you think.
I always understood that a crucial part of religion, Catholocism in my case, is faith- believing in that which is not as firm as gravity. your faith can be a rock, but if you see the prize it just doesn't count. And don't try the old "God is in a flower, a milkshake a laugh- a mozart piece - type argument. Theres a lot of "bad" objectively , that we shouldn't blame or credit GOD for.
Oh yeah, and the jackasses that point up when they score a touchdown, or thank god in a boxing ring- they are going straight to hell.
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 19:47:50. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 08:45:17 PM · #53 |
Wow. So you just toss all men into the same pot?
But I agree with you that it's just sad this still goes on.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 08:47:18 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Wow. So you just toss all men into the same pot?
But I agree with you that it's just sad this still goes on. |
LOL, plus I turned the pot on and then left for the day. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 09:02:43 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
LOL, plus I turned the pot on and then left for the day. |
Now THAT'S funny. You have some reading to catch up on. :)
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 09:18:55 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the tribal bozos of such and such a nation want to kill their women for pretend crimes, then who am I to stop them? |
We stop them for the same reason we intervene when someone attempts suicide, for the same reason we rescue a drowning enemy sailor, for the same reason we stand aghast at the horrors of Darfur... because we are human and we feel compassion. It may not be our right to intervene, but it's still our responsibility.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wouldn't the Islamic fundamentalists consider it to be "decent" to cover women from head to toe? I guess I'll never understand why you think your own "decent" is better than theirs. See the "live and let live" policy I mentioned to Gordon. ...You claim some measure of moral authority in this situation ("...in favor of decency") but want nothing to do with whatever that moral authority may be based upon (or just simply deny it's not based on anything). |
The problem with "live and let live" is that the victim will NOT live. This isn't a matter of fashion. If your culture values burkhas, powdered wigs or kilts, hey, knock yourself out. I agree that's none of my business, just as what you do in the privacy of your house is none of my business... as long as you're not killing people. Then it's everyone's business. Imposing a death sentence on someone for practicing witchcraft, cavorting with fairies and unicorns, or causing a solar eclipse- without ANY opportunity for defense- should be an outrage to everyone.
I dispute the very notion of a moral authority. The basic concepts of right and wrong surely existed long before papyrus, ink or even alphabets. The only thing religion is a basis for is discrimmination: each one exists only to define the chosen group who gets to enjoy these benefits and rights... often at the expense of others. It appalls me that you would even consider allowing any human being to perish just because they're not a member of your culture. If there was no such thing as religion anywhere in the world, would we not still extend our hand to another in need? That's practically a defining characteristic of any social animal. If dogs, elephants, monkeys, honeybees and dolphins can come to the aid of an injured member of its species without first checking the proper interpretation of the right translation of page 162 of some ancient rulebook to make sure they're authorized, surely we can do no less! :-/ |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 09:48:31 PM · #57 |
They can't possibly be handing over the death penalty because she confessed to it?! no one in their right mind would do that.. I quite doubt the credibility of the witnesses.. Chances are there's a deep rooted grudge somewhere or some money to be made..It's not the supposed crime itself that's even relevant here but what the grudge against her is. edit:: Read up on the case, Two guys say they've been rendered impotent.. Blaming women on their own shortcomings.. how clever and original..
You must understand that religion is a convinient excuse when people use it against the illiterate. They don't know anything about their own religion and believe in just about anything anyone says. Ignorance is the easiest way to control people..
I'm not making a comment on the witchcraft aspect because for a lot of people it is something real.. People genuinely make an effort to ward from it and practice it, even today.. The fear of it is just as real and for a lot that would still be considered a crime as in the way their ansestors did.. We can't forget that saudia arabia opened it's doors to the world very very late.. In the 60s they were still living as they had been for centuries.. and their kings hadn't even allow electricity for the people.. so I'm not surprised by their weirdness.
Message edited by author 2008-02-15 05:58:25. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:04:17 PM · #58 |
Just to be sure (I haven't read all the posts, but here are some thoughts):
1. What is the native's definition of "witchcraft"?
2. Shaky and arbitrary courtsystems are not middle-aged as opposed to modern--they are just as prominent in modern courts.
3. It seems an unfounded assumption in this discussion that the moral codes that condemn "witchcraft" are meaningless, absent, incoherent, etc. We have not tried to adopt their conceptual scheme.
4. This doesn't make the condemnation any less reprehensible, so long as we acknowledge that this reprehensibility derives from a fundamental disparity in cultural and moral structures. We might state, for example, that in the modern world certain beliefs (as regarding witchcraft, for example) should be made to cohere with more common conceptions of life and crime.
5. This is not male vs. female, and it is not modern vs. primitive.
6. It is a fallacy to infer from the statement that two positions are the products of cultural systems that they are therefore equal.
7. The moral community often makes exceptions for when certain individuals are allowed to or must perish. Life is not intrinsically the best option (it would be cruel to keep a severely injured doe alive for as long as we could).
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 10:37:20 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the tribal bozos of such and such a nation want to kill their women for pretend crimes, then who am I to stop them? |
We stop them for the same reason we intervene when someone attempts suicide, for the same reason we rescue a drowning enemy sailor, for the same reason we stand aghast at the horrors of Darfur... because we are human and we feel compassion. It may not be our right to intervene, but it's still our responsibility.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wouldn't the Islamic fundamentalists consider it to be "decent" to cover women from head to toe? I guess I'll never understand why you think your own "decent" is better than theirs. See the "live and let live" policy I mentioned to Gordon. ...You claim some measure of moral authority in this situation ("...in favor of decency") but want nothing to do with whatever that moral authority may be based upon (or just simply deny it's not based on anything). |
The problem with "live and let live" is that the victim will NOT live. This isn't a matter of fashion. If your culture values burkhas, powdered wigs or kilts, hey, knock yourself out. I agree that's none of my business, just as what you do in the privacy of your house is none of my business... as long as you're not killing people. Then it's everyone's business. Imposing a death sentence on someone for practicing witchcraft, cavorting with fairies and unicorns, or causing a solar eclipse- without ANY opportunity for defense- should be an outrage to everyone.
I dispute the very notion of a moral authority. The basic concepts of right and wrong surely existed long before papyrus, ink or even alphabets. The only thing religion is a basis for is discrimmination: each one exists only to define the chosen group who gets to enjoy these benefits and rights... often at the expense of others. It appalls me that you would even consider allowing any human being to perish just because they're not a member of your culture. If there was no such thing as religion anywhere in the world, would we not still extend our hand to another in need? That's practically a defining characteristic of any social animal. If dogs, elephants, monkeys, honeybees and dolphins can come to the aid of an injured member of its species without first checking the proper interpretation of the right translation of page 162 of some ancient rulebook to make sure they're authorized, surely we can do no less! :-/ |
I wouldn't blame religion for discrimation. Religion is just one of many things people use to discrimate with. Other than that I agree with what you said. The actions taken towards violence in a distant land should be no different than that at one's door step. Yet we treat it differently because we don't value people equally. If we did there wouldn't be any genocides.
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 22:38:08.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2008 12:48:04 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I wouldn't blame religion for discrimation. Religion is just one of many things people use to discrimate with. |
It's not the only reason, to be sure, but it's a biggie. Absent religion, there would be no real difference between local peoples declaring themselves sunni or shiite, catholic or protestant, hindu or muslim, etc. |
|
|
|
02/15/2008 12:54:18 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I wouldn't blame religion for discrimation. Religion is just one of many things people use to discrimate with. |
It's not the only reason, to be sure, but it's a biggie. Absent religion, there would be no real difference between local peoples declaring themselves sunni or shiite, catholic or protestant, hindu or muslim, etc. |
There will always be the Haves and Have-nots. That's all we need to perpetuate violence for the rest of forever. |
|
|
|
02/15/2008 11:37:55 AM · #62 |
I suppose if we all lived in a world where all things wrong...can be made right and where all things broken...can be made whole...we would all see life through the filter called "Heaven" and gain strength from the appreciation of our individual perspectives.
The details of this case are sketchy and we'll probably never know the whole story or even rest of the story...
So, I can't decide if I feel better or worse...but I am quite grateful that I can not only feel but have the freedom to express a thought or to here in this forum.
We should all be so lucky. Right?
|
|
|
|
02/15/2008 11:39:13 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There will always be the Haves and Have-nots. That's all we need to perpetuate violence for the rest of forever. |
Maybe so, but it's certainly easier to justify killing when you can apply some arbitrary superstition to it: 'She's a witch/fairy/devil/non-believer'! |
|
|
|
02/15/2008 12:46:15 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by mchalmers:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There will always be the Haves and Have-nots. That's all we need to perpetuate violence for the rest of forever. |
Maybe so, but it's certainly easier to justify killing when you can apply some arbitrary superstition to it: 'She's a witch/fairy/devil/non-believer'! |
Sure we can feel free to attach any adjective you want. Religion gets used for that. Other ideologies get used for that too. It isn't the fault of the religion or ideology though (are all communists as bloodthirsty as Stalin?).
Message edited by author 2008-02-15 12:47:02.
|
|
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: 07/23/2025 04:22:35 PM EDT.
