d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > #nolivesmatter > Yep
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 30,815
Joined: Mar 12 2008
Gold: 252.29
Aug 17 2016 09:48pm
Quote (MultiMulti @ Aug 17 2016 01:30am)
No lives matter, we could all die here and earth would still orbit the sun and the sun would still survive until it's death we mean nothing people....#nolivesmatter


Vouch.
Member
Posts: 37,236
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Gold: 3,375.01
Aug 17 2016 09:55pm
I agree. No one really cares about anyone. It's true. Other than your close close family pretty much everything else is irrelevant , but then again you're not relevant to anyone else. So in the end everyone is irrelevant.
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Aug 18 2016 04:57am
Quote (Gastly @ Aug 18 2016 01:21am)
Why would there be no right or wrong without a supreme being?

If there is something that is good all-around, then would it not be right?


You can believe that if you like, but I don't. Without a God there is no objective morality imo
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Aug 18 2016 05:08am
Quote (dro94 @ Aug 18 2016 05:57am)
You can believe that if you like, but I don't. Without a God there is no objective morality imo


Objectively.....I would say the rocks don't need morality to do what they need to do :)

As for Objective human morality, you can argue there are things are bad in all cases all the time and things that are good in all cases all the time between moral agents.

For example it is hard to say that sexually assaulting children could be permissible in any circumstance and such a thing could easily be labeled as objectively bad, because it is a bad thing for a moral agent to do in all instances.

While you can't have good and bad acts, you can have a good or bad will, which is why intent matters. Intent isn't something you can ever really know from somebody else, which is why morality is so personal.

Sartre said if God is Dead then everything is permitted...but he was completely wrong and has is backwards there. If you believe in God then everything is permitted. You can put on a vest and kill yourself and dozens of other people in good conscious. You can marry and fornicate with a dozen child brides, You can hoard wealth and food and hide it as your neighbors are starving in acute need. You can even kill your son if you're Abraham for fucks sake. Ethics and morality go out the window when it comes to religious belief...this is because ethics and morality are universal principles, and when somebody makes the leap of faith, they're choosing a relationship between their subjective self and a universal absolute that transcends the universal categories of "neighbor" or "father-son" or "citizen". They are permitted to do horrible things just because their belief justifies it.

So if God is alive, everything is permitted, is more true. You can do whatever you want and your Superego won't smash you into bits. That is where God lives btw, the Superego. AKA The Big Other, which tends to be your parents until you outgrow them and fill that need with something else.

Quote (dirTyMan @ Aug 17 2016 10:55pm)
I agree. No one really cares about anyone. It's true. Other than your close close family pretty much everything else is irrelevant , but then again you're not relevant to anyone else. So in the end everyone is irrelevant.


I love when people project their personality onto the rest of existence.

It is like the person that says "well he is saying what everybody is thinking"....no, he is saying what you're thinking....lol.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 18 2016 05:11am
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Aug 18 2016 05:29am
Quote (Skinned @ Aug 18 2016 12:08pm)
Objectively.....I would say the rocks don't need morality to do what they need to do :)

As for Objective human morality, you can argue there are things are bad in all cases all the time and things that are good in all cases all the time between moral agents.

For example it is hard to say that sexually assaulting children could be permissible in any circumstance and such a thing could easily be labeled as objectively bad, because it is a bad thing for a moral agent to do in all instances.

While you can't have good and bad acts, you can have a good or bad will, which is why intent matters. Intent isn't something you can ever really know from somebody else, which is why morality is so personal.

Sartre said if God is Dead then everything is permitted...but he was completely wrong and has is backwards there. If you believe in God then everything is permitted. You can put on a vest and kill yourself and dozens of other people in good conscious. You can marry and fornicate with a dozen child brides, You can hoard wealth and food and hide it as your neighbors are starving in acute need. You can even kill your son if you're Abraham for fucks sake. Ethics and morality go out the window when it comes to religious belief...this is because ethics and morality are universal principles, and when somebody makes the leap of faith, they're choosing a relationship between their subjective self and a universal absolute that transcends the universal categories of "neighbor" or "father-son" or "citizen". They are permitted to do horrible things just because their belief justifies it.

So if God is alive, everything is permitted, is more true. You can do whatever you want and your Superego won't smash you into bits. That is where God lives btw, the Superego. AKA The Big Other, which tends to be your parents until you outgrow them and fill that need with something else.



I love when people project their personality onto the rest of existence.

It is like the person that says "well he is saying what everybody is thinking"....no, he is saying what you're thinking....lol.


Nice post. Let's start off by dissecting your bolded statement. You are using the terms 'good' and 'bad' to reflect what people would or wouldn't do in a given situation, which I don't agree with. There are plenty of things I wouldn't do, all the time, in every situation, that I wouldn't consider bad. And vice versa.

In reference to your example about sexually assaulting children. All moral agents being adverse to sexually assaulting children doesn't impose an objective morality on it. Every moral agent wouldn't want to sexually assault a child because it's a horrible thing to do, and our own relative morality guided by the golden rule dictates that we shouldn't do it.

I understand that the lack of an objective morality in regard to heinous crimes such as the above can be seen as quite an extreme view to take. However we end up at the same place. I don't want to live in a world where sexually assaulting children happens, so making it illegal and imposing harsh penalties on those that do is a logical thing to do. I wouldn't want to be sexually assaulted as a child and I wouldn't want my children to be sexually assaulted either, so we want to live in a culture that safeguards them.

The way I see it, it's still relative morality rather than objective, no matter the action.

Believing in God and saying therefore everything is permitted is subject to the particular holy book and accompanying scriptures that go with it. I do understand that the zealotry that religion purports does indirectly lead to everything being permissible just using the warped logic of 'God is on my side.'

This post was edited by dro94 on Aug 18 2016 05:29am
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Aug 18 2016 06:45am
Quote (dro94 @ Aug 18 2016 06:29am)
Nice post. Let's start off by dissecting your bolded statement. You are using the terms 'good' and 'bad' to reflect what people would or wouldn't do in a given situation, which I don't agree with. There are plenty of things I wouldn't do, all the time, in every situation, that I wouldn't consider bad. And vice versa.

In reference to your example about sexually assaulting children. All moral agents being adverse to sexually assaulting children doesn't impose an objective morality on it. Every moral agent wouldn't want to sexually assault a child because it's a horrible thing to do, and our own relative morality guided by the golden rule dictates that we shouldn't do it.

I understand that the lack of an objective morality in regard to heinous crimes such as the above can be seen as quite an extreme view to take. However we end up at the same place. I don't want to live in a world where sexually assaulting children happens, so making it illegal and imposing harsh penalties on those that do is a logical thing to do. I wouldn't want to be sexually assaulted as a child and I wouldn't want my children to be sexually assaulted either, so we want to live in a culture that safeguards them.

The way I see it, it's still relative morality rather than objective, no matter the action.

Believing in God and saying therefore everything is permitted is subject to the particular holy book and accompanying scriptures that go with it. I do understand that the zealotry that religion purports does indirectly lead to everything being permissible just using the warped logic of 'God is on my side.'


I'll get back to this soon. I'm kind of busy now.

Tbh morality is a thing and the objective/subjective dichotomy are just words we use to describe it. It is one thing, and whether we call it objective or subject doesn't affect the importance of it.

I think morality is part of cognition. I think when the mind perceived an object and focuses its intent on that object, it imposes not only a form on the matter, but it also imposes an emotional and moral imprint on that object. I think it is all written right into single experience....and when we try to separate these things apart from one another it must be within the idea that things can become more than the sum of their parts as well.
Member
Posts: 7,264
Joined: Mar 3 2016
Gold: 0.07
Warn: 20%
Aug 18 2016 07:59am
Loving a lot of these posts!

This post was edited by MultiMulti on Aug 18 2016 07:59am
Member
Posts: 37,236
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Gold: 3,375.01
Aug 18 2016 03:59pm
Quote (Skinned @ Aug 18 2016 04:08am)
Objectively.....I would say the rocks don't need morality to do what they need to do :)

As for Objective human morality, you can argue there are things are bad in all cases all the time and things that are good in all cases all the time between moral agents.

For example it is hard to say that sexually assaulting children could be permissible in any circumstance and such a thing could easily be labeled as objectively bad, because it is a bad thing for a moral agent to do in all instances.

While you can't have good and bad acts, you can have a good or bad will, which is why intent matters. Intent isn't something you can ever really know from somebody else, which is why morality is so personal.

Sartre said if God is Dead then everything is permitted...but he was completely wrong and has is backwards there. If you believe in God then everything is permitted. You can put on a vest and kill yourself and dozens of other people in good conscious. You can marry and fornicate with a dozen child brides, You can hoard wealth and food and hide it as your neighbors are starving in acute need. You can even kill your son if you're Abraham for fucks sake. Ethics and morality go out the window when it comes to religious belief...this is because ethics and morality are universal principles, and when somebody makes the leap of faith, they're choosing a relationship between their subjective self and a universal absolute that transcends the universal categories of "neighbor" or "father-son" or "citizen". They are permitted to do horrible things just because their belief justifies it.

So if God is alive, everything is permitted, is more true. You can do whatever you want and your Superego won't smash you into bits. That is where God lives btw, the Superego. AKA The Big Other, which tends to be your parents until you outgrow them and fill that need with something else.



I love when people project their personality onto the rest of existence.

It is like the person that says "well he is saying what everybody is thinking"....no, he is saying what you're thinking....lol.



Nobody on these forums cares if you live or die, at least enough for it to effect them. In real life it's the same. Maybe a few would care for a little then only your family then eventually no one.
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Aug 18 2016 04:01pm
Quote (dirTyMan @ Aug 18 2016 10:59pm)
Nobody on these forums cares if you live or die, at least enough for it to effect them. In real life it's the same. Maybe a few would care for a little then only your family then eventually no one.


if skinned died id send his family £20 for funeral expenses. im sure someone would start a crowdfund
Member
Posts: 90,652
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Aug 18 2016 04:07pm
Quote (dro94 @ Aug 18 2016 04:01pm)
if skinned died id send his family £20 for funeral expenses. im sure someone would start a crowdfund


wtf is his family gonna do with that? add it to the monopoly board?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll