This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Objective Morality

#61hunter_gohanPosted 5/23/2013 12:49:41 PM(edited)
C_Mat posted...
So, Stalin is just the same as the Christian God, except for his power and species. Basically, Stalin has as much similarity to God as he has similarity to the queen of an anthill colony.


They're both tyrannical dictators. Stalin might style his hair differently and not have as majestic a beard, but that's irrelevant to any comparison being made.

First of all, your comparison still fails. Wearing clothes of a mixed fabric, regardless of how silly that sounds to you, is an action. Preferring a flavor of ice cream is not an action. How do you not see the difference?


That's nice and completely irrelevant. They are both completely arbitrary, and it's not like there's a lack of "crimes" that aren't in any way actions according to the bible.

But fine since you seem so frelling hung up on this stupid example(That was only put forth to show an authority punishing something doesn't actually make it objectively immoral) because of inane technicalities:

Smiling on a Tuesday is illegal.
Wearing clothes of mixed fabric is illegal.
Talking on a Friday is illegal.
Having lustful thoughts is illegal.
Thinking of a pink elephant is illegal.
Working on Sunday(Or Saturday depending) is illegal.

These are all completely arbitrary "crimes" that should not in any way be punishable. I would go so far as to say that anyone who prescribes punishment for these crimes(especially death) is in fact the immoral one. No matter how powerful they are, or how special you think they are. Someone killing another person because they broke one of those inane rules is the immoral person in that scenario.

I'm sure you could come up with all kinds of inane technicalities to show they aren't all 100% identical to each other. That doesn't change them being completely arbitrary, and no matter what authority will punish you for breaking them it doesn't make them objectively immoral.

The stories of Onan and Uzzah have very clear, obvious reasons that they were wrong actions deserving of punishment. I would explain them, but if actually cared about the truth you could just Google them yourself (I have doubts that you really care about the truth so I won't bother.) Job was not punished.


roflmao "Oh dude I just killed your entire family, but don't worry that's not in any way a punishment". Yeah I can just imagine the sterling, clear and obvious reasons when you don't count the complete slaughter of someone's family as a punishment. Anything to defend your chosen tyrannical dictator huh? The only thing objective about this morality is how abhorrent it is.

It is a sin when you have an dirty mind. Whether it's a thought crime or not doesn't really matter. What matters is whether you can control the sin (and you can, nobody is forced to have lustful thoughts).


Any thought crime is practically the definition of an arbitrary crime. No that does not actually matter at all. I can control whether I talk or not; that doesn't make a rule saying it's illegal to talk on a Friday moral or not arbitrary in the slightest.

God has good reasons to want humans to have pure minds and pure thoughts about each other. I'm surprised you would have a problem with this.


Stalin has good reasons to want the people to have pure communist minds and pure communist thoughts about everything. I'm surprised you would have a problem with this.

Yes I have a problem with immoral, arbitrary rules. Crazy huh?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#62OrangeWizardPosted 5/23/2013 12:36:54 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #061
that should not in any way be punishable


On what basis?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#63Dathrowed1Posted 5/23/2013 2:45:34 PM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
From: hunter_gohan | #061
that should not in any way be punishable


On what basis?


And how are they arbitrary?
---
sig
#64hunter_gohanPosted 5/23/2013 3:11:28 PM
You really need me to point out how:

Smiling on a Tuesday is illegal.
Wearing clothes of mixed fabric is illegal.
Talking on a Friday is illegal.
Having lustful thoughts is illegal.
Thinking of a pink elephant is illegal.
Working on Sunday(Or Saturday depending) is illegal.

Are examples of arbitrary laws? If these aren't arbitrary, then what exactly do you think arbitrary laws would be?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#65Dathrowed1Posted 5/23/2013 3:14:09 PM
yeah, you need to explain why you believe your laws are arbitrary.
---
sig
#66OrangeWizardPosted 5/23/2013 3:35:03 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #064
You really need me to point out how:

Smiling on a Tuesday is illegal.
Wearing clothes of mixed fabric is illegal.
Talking on a Friday is illegal.
Having lustful thoughts is illegal.
Thinking of a pink elephant is illegal.
Working on Sunday(Or Saturday depending) is illegal.

Are examples of arbitrary laws?


Yes. If you do not know or understand the rationale behind the laws, how can you judge them as arbitrary?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#67C_MatPosted 5/24/2013 5:59:14 AM
hunter_gohan posted...
They're both tyrannical dictators. Stalin might style his hair differently and not have as majestic a beard, but that's irrelevant to any comparison being made.


This doesn't even respond to what I said. Hair style and beards are not even the differences you brought up, you said they were level of power and species. Which means, as I said before, that Stalin is as much a dictator as the queen of an anthill. You brought up beards instead of responding to this, which shows that you see the flaw in your own argument.

That's nice and completely irrelevant. They are both completely arbitrary, and it's not like there's a lack of "crimes" that aren't in any way actions according to the bible.

But fine since you seem so frelling hung up on this stupid example(That was only put forth to show an authority punishing something doesn't actually make it objectively immoral) because of inane technicalities:

Smiling on a Tuesday is illegal.
Wearing clothes of mixed fabric is illegal.
Talking on a Friday is illegal.
Having lustful thoughts is illegal.
Thinking of a pink elephant is illegal.
Working on Sunday(Or Saturday depending) is illegal.

These are all completely arbitrary "crimes" that should not in any way be punishable. I would go so far as to say that anyone who prescribes punishment for these crimes(especially death) is in fact the immoral one. No matter how powerful they are, or how special you think they are. Someone killing another person because they broke one of those inane rules is the immoral person in that scenario.

I'm sure you could come up with all kinds of inane technicalities to show they aren't all 100% identical to each other. That doesn't change them being completely arbitrary, and no matter what authority will punish you for breaking them it doesn't make them objectively immoral.


So you're openly admitting that you don't understand the difference between an action and a preference, or a sin vs a temptation? From the list you made, it's obvious that the distinction isn't getting through to you, so before we go on you should admit you don't understand these common words in the English language.

roflmao "Oh dude I just killed your entire family, but don't worry that's not in any way a punishment". Yeah I can just imagine the sterling, clear and obvious reasons when you don't count the complete slaughter of someone's family as a punishment. Anything to defend your chosen tyrannical dictator huh? The only thing objective about this morality is how abhorrent it is.


I don't know what story you're referring to.

Any thought crime is practically the definition of an arbitrary crime. No that does not actually matter at all. I can control whether I talk or not; that doesn't make a rule saying it's illegal to talk on a Friday moral or not arbitrary in the slightest.


Maybe you should post the definitions of "arbitrary crime" and "thought crime," because I'm not seeing the similarity. Is English your first language? I'm not making fun of you if it's not, just curious.

Stalin has good reasons to want the people to have pure communist minds and pure communist thoughts about everything. I'm surprised you would have a problem with this.

Yes I have a problem with immoral, arbitrary rules. Crazy huh?


You consider having a pure mind to be immoral? Yes, I do think that's crazy. Not sure what's considered arbitrary about avoiding impure thoughts, but this could go back to your problems with English.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#68Dathrowed1Posted 5/24/2013 6:07:10 AM
C_Mat, OW and I are still waiting for him to explain why those laws are arbitrary
---
sig
#69Julian_CaesarPosted 5/24/2013 8:33:53 AM
From: hunter_gohan | #059
Has god ever say sent an opposing army to teach the Israelites a lesson? Would something like that ever align with his will?


I think you just proved my point.

If you are just going to post a gif or something, then don't even bother just move on.


Well that I can agree with.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#70JonWood007Posted 5/24/2013 10:11:49 AM
They;re arbitrary because they don't appear to be grounded on solid logic and rationale. It's up to the person arguing for the law to explain the rationale, not to appeal to the unknown.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768