LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Humans that are taught to want this do. But I think human's are more or less a blank slate at birth. We need to be taught what is good and what is not. I know you will abhor this suggestion, but spend some time around children and I think you will see evidence of this.

I have spend a lot of time around children, and they are very giving/nurturing if they see someone in need of help. Even the crappily brought up ones.

sgtclub

05-24-2005 05:34 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I have spend a lot of time around children, and they are very giving/nurturing if they see someone in need of help. Even the crappily brought up ones.

Your friends/family are apparently better parents than mine.

Gattigap

05-24-2005 05:35 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

As far as I am concerend nature/nurture is the basis of politics. I find the disucssion interesting. If you don't want to read my posts, simply ignore them, or you could go to the fashion board and discuss American Idol and breast implants.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 05:38 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your friends/family are apparently better parents than mine.

When they are quite young, if they see a person (esp a baby/young child) crying, they will often express concern. Depending on whether they are feeling OK (this goes back to my "all things being equal") themselves. They learn later to ignore it (or not, depending on the situation).

Tyrone Slothrop

05-24-2005 05:53 PM

Voinovich tells colleagues to vote against Bolton

Quote:

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been hesitant to push my views on my colleagues. However, I feel compelled to share my deep concerns with the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. I strongly feel that the importance of this nomination to our foreign policy requires us to set aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation’s best interests guide us.
At a time when the United States strives to fight terrorism globally, to build a stable and free Iraq, to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, to spread democracy in the place of oppressive regimes, and to enact needed reforms at the United Nations, it is imperative that we have the support of our friends and allies internationally. These strong international relationships must be built upon robust and effective public diplomacy.

I applaud our President for understanding this and for his leadership on U.S. public diplomacy. He and Secretary Rice have taken important steps to reach out to the international community and strengthen relationships. Additionally, I applaud the President’s decision to appoint Karen Hughes to enhance U.S. public diplomacy at the State Department, and recently to get even the First Lady involved in these important efforts to promote public diplomacy.

However, it is my concern that John Bolton’s nomination sends a negative message to the world community and contradicts the President’s efforts. In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation’s ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective Ambassador to the United Nations. I worry that Mr. Bolton could make it more difficult for us to achieve the important U.N. reforms needed to restore the strength of the institution. I strongly believe that we need to reform the U.N., make it a viable institution for world security, and remove its anti-Israel bias. However, I question John Bolton’s ability to get this job done.

I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate it if you would review my edited statement before the Foreign Relations Committee as to why I think we can do much better than John Bolton at the United Nations. In my closing words, I stated the following:

“Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the President to give Mr. Bolton an up or down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. My hope is that, on a bipartisan basis, we send Mr. Bolton’s nomination to the floor without recommendation and let the Senate work its will. I would plead with my colleagues in the Senate, if this nomination gets to the floor, to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read all of the pertinent material, and to ask themselves several pertinent questions: Is John Bolton the best possible person to serve as the lead diplomat at the United Nations? Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N., despite his damaged credibility? Will he share information with the right individuals and will he solicit information from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so that he can make the most informed decisions? Is he capable of advancing the President and Secretary of State’s efforts to advance our public diplomacy? Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self discipline, common decency, and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory? Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote peace, and uphold democracy -- as a team – with our fellow nations?”

If you have any comments or questions in regard to my deep concerns about this appointment, I would welcome them.
Sincerely,

George V. Voinovich
United States Senate

TAPPED

Shape Shifter

05-24-2005 05:54 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
When they are quite young, if they see a person (esp a baby/young child) crying, they will often express concern. Depending on whether they are feeling OK (this goes back to my "all things being equal") themselves. They learn later to ignore it (or not, depending on the situation).

There's always the mean kid, though, and they grow up to be mean adults, like Trent Lott or lo-berry.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 05:57 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There's always the mean kid, though, and they grow up to be mean adults, like Trent Lott or lo-berry.

Absolutely. I think there's a range, and not everyone gets enough to show.

But I still want to know what Spanky thinks makes up the morality that we all agree on and got from a higher power (often called "god" as a shorthand). My "generally help other people, all things being equal" is not much.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

05-24-2005 06:13 PM

Voinovich tells colleagues to vote against Bolton

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Voinovich screws Bush.

So Bolton's dead? It doesn't take many Rs to put the nails in the coffin.

This Republican congress is kind of interesting.

Shape Shifter

05-24-2005 06:14 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Absolutely. I think there's a range, and not everyone gets enough to show.

But I still want to know what Spanky thinks makes up the morality that we all agree on and got from a higher power (often called "god" as a shorthand). My "generally help other people, all things being equal" is not much.

We know that morality and ethics predated the writing of the Old Testament. These were derived from religions that, if we accept Judeo-Christianity as true, are fake. This means that either the religions were made up by men or delivered here by aliens. Since morality must come from a higher power (per spanky), the religion must have been delivered by aliens.

George Lucas invented the aliens. Therefore, George Lucas is the source of all morality.

QED.

sgtclub

05-24-2005 06:27 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
As far as I am concerend nature/nurture is the basis of politics. I find the disucssion interesting. If you don't want to read my posts, simply ignore them, or you could go to the fashion board and discuss American Idol and breast implants.

Why are you addressing this to me? For the last time, I'm not Spanky.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 06:29 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why are you addressing this to me? For the last time, I'm not Spanky.

Spankers, after a brief foray into some ickiness, we are back on sex on the FB. Just so you know.

Not Me

05-24-2005 06:52 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
discuss . . . breast implants.

You rang?

Spanky

05-24-2005 07:39 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Spankers, after a brief foray into some ickiness, we are back on sex on the FB. Just so you know.

I go to some work for a while and this thing explodes. To respond to Fringey and everyone else. I am not trying to defend religion or defend anything. I am also not trying to say that there is rational proof of the existence of God. What I am saying is:

1) No one has every explained to me a morality system that is based on reason or rational. All nonsupernatural morality systems are based on self interest.

2) Under a self interest morality system people are good because it helps them survive. Animals run in Packs because that gives them a greater chance of survival than if they ran alone. They have developed the instinct to run in packs because it helps them carry on their Genetic code. Under Darwinian theory, humans evolved a morality code because it helped them live together in societies and therefore helped them survive and carry on their genetic code. So morality is part of our makeup because it helps us survive.

3) Under a self interest morality system there is no reason to feed people in Bangaladesh. If you understand that morality is simply part of evolution to help you survive, then you should be able to rise above it. Just like your instincts tell you to eat candy, but you realize that instinct is really there to get you to eat fruit to avoid scurvey and not to get you to eat stuff with lots of sugar. In the same vein, if you understand that you have morals just to help you survive, you then realize you survival chances are better if you live among people that are moral but you do not act morally. In other words, if you can steal from your neighbor is it OK if you can get away with it, as long as you are not caught and get kicked out of the society (where your survival chances will be reduced). Following the same logic, you desire to feed kids in bangaladesh is just from an instinct that helps you survie, but helping kids in Bangaladesh is just a by product of that instinct (like eating chocolate) and therefore you, if you really understand your self interest, you should ignore it.

4) Without a universal moral code, all morality is relative. Your arguments should be based on self interest.

5) If people on this board did not believe in a universal moral code their only political argument would be that something does or does not serve their self interest. They would not care about the morality. So all arguments of right and wrong are irrelevant.

6) If you believe in a universal moral code then you have to believe that someone or some things concocted it. So there had to be a higher power. So there may not be rational proof of God, but just by arguing what is right and wrong you are assuming such a God.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 07:42 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
5) If people on this board did not believe in a universal moral code their only political argument would be that something does or does not serve their self interest. They would not care about the morality. So all arguments of right and wrong are irrelevant.

Why can't it be that they think it benefits society in general?

Tyrone Slothrop

05-24-2005 07:42 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
1) No one has every explained to me a morality system that is based on reason or rational. All nonsupernatural morality systems are based on self interest.

I think someone else suggested that you could check out John Rawls, who is not to be confused with his brother Lou.

Spanky

05-24-2005 07:44 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why can't it be that they think it benefits society in general?

If benefits society in general, but not them, then why would they care. If you position is also improved when society is improved, then yes you should support it. But you should only support stuff that either helps your survive or helps make your survival "better".

Spanky

05-24-2005 07:48 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think someone else suggested that you could check out John Rawls, who is not to be confused with his brother Lou.

I have read John Rawls, and he still does not explain why someone should not cheat on their taxes if they can get away with it. In his assumption that no one knows where they will be is ridiculous becasuse we all know where we are. And when you know your position, it is in your self interest to abuse your situation. In other words, take the Nietzian superman view and hope that every one else takes the John Rawls position so you can take advantage of them.

Tyrone Slothrop

05-24-2005 07:49 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I have read John Rawls, and he still does not explain why someone should not cheat on their taxes if they can get away with it. In his assumption that no one knows where they will be is ridiculous becasuse we all know where we are. And when you know your position, it is in your self interest to abuse your situation. In other words, take the Nietzian superman view and hope that every one else takes the John Rawls position so you can take advantage of them.

Isn't religious morality based on self-interest -- i.e., the desire to avoid burning in hell?

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 07:52 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If benefits society in general, but not them, then why would they care. If you position is also improved when society is improved, then yes you should support it. But you should only support stuff that either helps your survive or helps make your survival "better".

You are so tied up in black and white logical absurdity that you make no sense.

Where does altruism fit in? Or the whole Kantian thing? Where I can see that a particular rule may benefit me, but when applied to everyone it has a net negative effect -- so I don't want it to be the rule for everyone, even though I might lose a personal advantage.

do you even agree with the convoluted crap you are spewing?

you are impossible to talk to. I sure hope you are good with body language.

Spanky

05-24-2005 07:55 PM

To further explain the starving Children in Bangaladesh. Under Darwins theory people develop morals to help them survive. If people have an instinct to feed the poor, or assist the weak, then that will help society because when people fall on hard luck they will be helped out. This increases the chance of society for the whole collective. Therefore that instinct is bred into us. However, if one realizes that one's personal chance of survial is better if one lives in that society, so if they fall sick or become poor, the will get get help. But while living in that society if they realize their instincts are there to build such a society, they will realize for them personally that feeding the poor reduces their chance of survival by taking resources away from themselves. So the key is to stay in the society but try and get away from reducing your own resources (this is know as the free rider problem). If one does not believe in universal moral code, how can you tell someone that they should not cheat on their taxes if they get away with it?

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 07:56 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

But we all know that once it gets out that a couple people are being superman-y (what a fucking stupid term), more people will start doing it, and soon pretty much everyone is doing it, and then the whole system is fucked and everyone, including the original superman, is worse off.

Do we have to go into the repeat-encounter prisoner's dilemma experiments? Christ.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
To further explain the starving Children in Bangaladesh. Under Darwins theory people develop morals to help them survive. If people have an instinct to feed the poor, or assist the weak, then that will help society because when people fall on hard luck they will be helped out. This increases the chance of society for the whole collective. Therefore that instinct is bred into us. However, if one realizes that one's personal chance of survial is better if one lives in that society, so if they fall sick or become poor, the will get get help. But while living in that society if they realize their instincts are there to build such a society, they will realize for them personally that feeding the poor reduces their chance of survival by taking resources away from themselves. So the key is to stay in the society but try and get away from reducing your own resources (this is know as the free rider problem). If one does not believe in universal moral code, how can you tell someone that they should not cheat on their taxes if they get away with it?

Because if everyone cheats on their taxes, even if they get away with it, there is not enough tax revenue.

The instinct to help I think decreases as whatever is in need seems more "other." A mom might starve for her kid, but probably not anyone else's. If food is relatively plentiful, though, or at least sufficient, she will feed a hungry abandoned kid.

I am fucking never having kids. If you people are examples of what's ruling the country, I don't want to think about what they would end up with. It's too fucking depressing.

Spanky

05-24-2005 08:12 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But we all know that once it gets out that a couple people are being superman-y (what a fucking stupid term), more people will start doing it, and soon pretty much everyone is doing it, and then the whole system is fucked and everyone, including the original superman, is worse off.

Do we have to go into the repeat-encounter prisoner's dilemma experiments? Christ.

What makes you so hostile?

What you say is true in theory, but in todays world, if someone does not pay their taxes is everyone else going to stop. No. So without a universal moral code, you can not tell someone they should not pay their taxes if they can get away with it.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 08:20 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you so hostile?

What you say is true in theory, but in todays world, if someone does not pay their taxes is everyone else going to stop. No. So without a universal moral code, you can not tell someone they should not pay their taxes if they can get away with it.

You are smarter than this. And I think your post is missing some words. Or punctuation.

I think knowing that people get away with cheating on their taxes makes people who would normally be meticulous more likely to fudge things like "home office" and "business expenses." Slippery slope.

Of course, I intermittently get a lot of exposure to the whole "social norms" universe of stuff, and am no doubt influenced by that. I find it pretty compelling, though.

Spanky

05-24-2005 08:21 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Isn't religious morality based on self-interest -- i.e., the desire to avoid burning in hell?

Yes - that kind of religious philosophy.

I used to be an Atheist/Agnostic for years. The problem was that my instincts told me that female circumscission in North Africa is wrong. My instincts also told me that as long as there are starving people in the world something is not right and needs to be fixed. My instincts also told me that it is wrong to kill innocent people. My instincts also told me that these truths are universal. Killing is wrong in every society and all the time. In addition, I have no problem that tons of antelopes are being killed every year by Lions. My instincts tell me there is right and wrong and it aplies to everyone everywhere.

The problem is if my instincts are just there as a survival mechanism than how do you argue with someone and tell them slavery is wrong. But if it just an instinctual feeling that helps me survive how do I tell a Northern Sudanese what they are doing is wrong when the enslave a black Sudanese. Like Jefferson, I think certain morality is self evident, and the only way it can be self evident if is it comes from somewhere.

Where is the lapse in my logic?

Spanky

05-24-2005 08:24 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are smarter than this. And I think your post is missing some words. Or punctuation.

I think knowing that people get away with cheating on their taxes makes people who would normally be meticulous more likely to fudge things like "home office" and "business expenses." Slippery slope.

Of course, I intermittently get a lot of exposure to the whole "social norms" universe of stuff, and am no doubt influenced by that. I find it pretty compelling, though.

Why do you believe slavery is wrong. Why is it immoral?

sgtclub

05-24-2005 08:29 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes - that kind of religious philosophy.

I used to be an Atheist/Agnostic for years. The problem was that my instincts told me that female circumscission in North Africa is wrong. My instincts also told me that as long as there are starving people in the world something is not right and needs to be fixed. My instincts also told me that it is wrong to kill innocent people. My instincts also told me that these truths are universal. Killing is wrong in every society and all the time. In addition, I have no problem that tons of antelopes are being killed every year by Lions. My instincts tell me there is right and wrong and it aplies to everyone everywhere.

The problem is if my instincts are just there as a survival mechanism than how do you argue with someone and tell them slavery is wrong. But if it just an instinctual feeling that helps me survive how do I tell a Northern Sudanese what they are doing is wrong when the enslave a black Sudanese. Like Jefferson, I think certain morality is self evident, and the only way it can be self evident if is it comes from somewhere.

Where is the lapse in my logic?

Umm, your instincts could be wrong? Or your instincts could be different than other people's instincts?

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 08:30 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Based on your upbringing and conditioning, female circumcision, starvation and slavery are pains you would not find at all tolerable personally. You project this intolerableness onto other people -- these three things are so foreign to your experience that you cannot see how they would be tolerable to anyone. Therefore, to you, these people are in intolerably bad conditions. We have evolved such that we have an innate desire that other people not be in intolerable conditions because it impairs their ability to thrive and, thus, threatens the survival of the species.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 08:32 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Why do you believe slavery is wrong. Why is it immoral?

When did I say I think it is immoral or wrong? How about, I would find being enslaved abhorrent.

OTOH, it might be OK -- depends what the alternatives are, and what I'm used to.

Spanky

05-24-2005 08:47 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Umm, your instincts could be wrong? Or your instincts could be different than other people's instincts?

But it seems to me the rest of the world has the same instincts. The world now universally seems to accept that Slavery is wrong. There is a Universal Human Rights statement put out by the UN, which most countrys agreed with. Regardless of culture or background. If morality were relative, and differed from culture to culture, a universal statement on human rights would be impossible. So would an international court of justice.

Spanky

05-24-2005 08:51 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Based on your upbringing and conditioning, female circumcision, starvation and slavery are pains you would not find at all tolerable personally. You project this intolerableness onto other people -- these three things are so foreign to your experience that you cannot see how they would be tolerable to anyone. Therefore, to you, these people are in intolerably bad conditions. We have evolved such that we have an innate desire that other people not be in intolerable conditions because it impairs their ability to thrive and, thus, threatens the survival of the species.

It does not threaten the survival of the species, and in no way harms me. Yet I am willing to spend a lot of resources (time and money) on helping to eradicate it. Is there a Universal code I am trying to support or am I just acting irrationally?

BTW - the Superman label came from Nietzcha not me. Didn't you see a Fish Called Wanda?

sgtclub

05-24-2005 08:51 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
But it seems to me the rest of the world has the same instincts. The world now universally seems to accept that Slavery is wrong. There is a Universal Human Rights statement put out by the UN, which most countrys agreed with. Regardless of culture or background. If morality were relative, and differed from culture to culture, a universal statement on human rights would be impossible. So would an international court of justice.

I don't think morality is relative, but I think the basis on which you claim to know what is moral is extremely flawed.

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 08:55 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

neither the universal statement nor international court of justice have been accepted by everyone. so they aren't really universal.

Hank Chinaski

05-24-2005 08:57 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We know that morality and ethics predated the writing of the Old Testament. These were derived from religions that, if we accept Judeo-Christianity as true, are fake. This means that either the religions were made up by men or delivered here by aliens. Since morality must come from a higher power (per spanky), the religion must have been delivered by aliens.

George Lucas invented the aliens. Therefore, George Lucas is the source of all morality.

QED.

I invented this.

Spanky

05-24-2005 08:59 PM

This existence of this board seems to assume an international moral code. We argue whether or not the invasion of Iraq was good for the Iraqis but we all assume that the well being of the Iraqis should be taken into consideration. I know I do. But why should we care about how our foreign policy effects the Iraqis, unless there is a universal moral code that we all agree on that states that you shouldn't screw up other peoples lives without good reason?

Every argument on this board assumes that someone's line of reasoning follows the universal moral code and the other persons reasoning does not. If morality is relative there could be no argument because we would all just have decisions based on our morality and there would be no point to arguing.

Hank Chinaski

05-24-2005 09:00 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are smarter than this.

for her to say this implies she thinks she is smarter than you. One cannot judge the intelligence of anything except the lesser intelligent.

Spanky

05-24-2005 09:01 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think morality is relative, but I think the basis on which you claim to know what is moral is extremely flawed.

So where does your universal morality come from? What other source is their?

Spanky

05-24-2005 09:02 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
neither the universal statement nor international court of justice have been accepted by everyone. so they aren't really universal.

True but the fact that even a billion people could agree on some sort of code seem to disprove the moral relativity theory. If morality is just based on culture, how could such document even be contemplated?

ltl/fb

05-24-2005 09:05 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
True but the fact that even a billion people could agree on some sort of code seem to disprove the moral relativity theory. If morality is just based on culture, how could such document even be contemplated?

A billion people didn't agree on it. I bet a bunch of them don't even know of the existence of these things. We as a country I believe don't feel we are bound by the international court. So your premise is wrong.

I think we are too far apart in worldview to discuss this rationally. And, I am leaving anyway.

Tyrone Slothrop

05-24-2005 09:20 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Like Jefferson, I think certain morality is self evident, and the only way it can be self evident if is it comes from somewhere.

Where is the lapse in my logic?

Pi is always 3.1415926535897etc., and you don't need religion to tell you that. Reason doubtless leads people to agree on a great many truths.

And at the margins these principles are not as universal as you suggest. Killing is bad, but killing in self defense is not. Many people believe it's OK to execute people for crimes, even though it's not self defense. The Aztecs' religion had them believing that human sacrifice is OK, something most people now would probably dispute.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Page 111 of 126

111

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page