THE END IS HERE!!! THE END IS HERE!!! 2012/12/21 !!! THE END IS HERE.
I'm just deep bro.
You guys talk about crazy stuff, I like it.
So from what I hear, this morning at 11:11 is the end of this current "era". (3:30AM atm for me.)
Unlike all the horrible death/apocalypse stories, it is instead more of a "transition" into a better "us".
Something like us as humans, becoming more in touch with our spiritual "presence".
Soo, I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning regardless that I should be sleeping now... Shower, eat some breakfast, complain in my head why I am actually forcing myself up when sleep would be sooooo good at the moment, and start a work out before 11:11 that will be half done at 11:11. So in other words, my first memories of anything in the new "era" will be bettering myself, feeling exhausted with no care in the world, then go back to sleep. (: merry christmas happy new era
I'm trying to figure out if my morals have led me to find a belief that suits them
or if I've created a morality based on my beliefs
I'm fairly sure it'd be going both ways, it's quite difficult to trace the root of your own ideals though
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
the cynic in me is leaning toward beliefs being shaped by morality
My opinion on Morality is that everything that feels wrong the first time you do it, usually is.
That feeling of guilt fades away the more you do the action, or are indoctrinated against it.
You can read all the various religious moral law books, but If you don't listen to yourself, then what's the point?
I believe the conscience is a powerful thing.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38919884]My opinion on Morality is that everything that feels wrong the first time you do it, usually is.
That feeling of guilt fades away the more you do the action, or are indoctrinated against it.
You can read all the various religious moral law books, but If you don't listen to yourself, then what's the point?
I believe the conscience is a powerful thing.[/QUOTE]
are you saying we should always trust our first impression? What if someone felt wrong doing something because of external factors (e.g. having a shit day).
not to mention that often what feels right to people at first may actually be something we view as immoral
I might be taking what you said at face value a bit much
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38919884]My opinion on Morality is that everything that feels wrong the first time you do it, usually is.
That feeling of guilt fades away the more you do the action, or are indoctrinated against it.
You can read all the various religious moral law books, but If you don't listen to yourself, then what's the point?
I believe the conscience is a powerful thing.[/QUOTE]
People and their morals change over time. The feeling of guilt when doing something for the first time is usually the result of external influence from society and people around you, as well as fear from ignorance/lack of knowledge. So I wouldn't say that something is wrong just because you feel bad the first time doing it, but then again there isn't really any right or wrong.
just imagine how fresh-out-of-the-closet homosexuals feel when the dick is right at the tip of their ass/mouth.
then imagine how awesome it is for them when they finally get used to it.
I'd say right there is a really good example.
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
beliefs create morality. basically.
[QUOTE=Pepin;38914481]To see if we could rape each other... at the same time. Well, the first experiment didn't work out because we just ended up having kinky sex. I mean it was a little rough, but I still enjoyed it. So our next idea was that she would rape me, but I would resist. But when we tried this, well, I just locked her in the bathroom. What is odd about this situation is that I am currently doing wrong because I am not raping, and by outsmarting a pornstar, I put Sasha in a situation where she also currently doing wrong because she is not raping.[/QUOTE]
If neither of you wanted it, you would both be raping each other. You can force yourself to do something you don't want to do. Like if you used sharp instruments or something.
Why the heck would anyone force themselves to do something they don't want to do, you ask? Well in this test, it's because you were told to and you're obligated (either psychologically or physically, doesn't really matter).
Do you want to rape her? Maybe so that the test is accurate (and I can't speak for you here) but I definitely wouldn't enjoy raping someone and I don't think I could, even for a test, and I don't think I'm alone there even if I wanted to have sex with her.
What if you didn't outsmart her? Would she truly be able to rape you with you trying to resist?
[QUOTE=Pepin;38914481]Logically, this must mean that the opposite of not rapping is good, which in reality is possible for everyone to do, while it is certainly not possible for everyone to rape each other at the same time.[/QUOTE]
First off... The opposite of not raping? Your conclusion is that raping is good? (I know you meant the other way around) Lastly, where does the conclusion that because everyone can't do it simultaneously means it's a bad thing come from?
dude i wouldn't make someone else touch sasha grey [I]for me[/I] with a 20 foot pole
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38917848]I must disagree.[/QUOTE]
Could you provide a concrete example of where a theory is proven to not reflect reality, yet the validity of this theory remains true? Basically something where a theory is proven wrong in the lab over and over and over, yet the theory is still considered true.
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38915038]If back during WW2 EVERYBODY in the world somehow thought that what hitler was doing was okay, would it be morally okay?[/QUOTE]
The question that should really be asked is, if you and someone both want to have sex, is it rape? If I think you are being raped while you do not believe you are, are you being raped?
[QUOTE=Pepin;38938704]
The question that should really be asked is, if you and someone both want to have sex, is it rape? If I think you are being raped while you do not believe you are, are you being raped?[/QUOTE]
No, you are not being raped, what is it with you and raping people? I am talking about the basic objectiveness of morality, not legal debating on what constitutes rape.
The question that should be asked is exactly what I have asked you:
Are morals objective, and if everyone in the world agrees that something horrible (Like raping babies) is ok, then is it really ok?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38939170]No, you are not being raped, what is it with you and raping people? I am talking about the basic objectiveness of morality, not legal debating on what constitutes rape.
The question that should be asked is exactly what I have asked you:
Are morals objective, and if everyone in the world agrees that something horrible (Like raping babies) is ok, then is it really ok?[/QUOTE]
The question doesn't make sense to me in context to the views I've stated.
If we agree that ethics exist, in that most all people need moral justification for their actions, then we also agree that there is good and evil, and that they are opposites. I think that we can also agree that an ethical theory needs to at least be logical. I think we can both agree that Hitler was evil, but why? We seem to institutionally know that murdering millions of people is wrong, yet, why is this? It is because it is impossible for murder to be good, because if both people want it, it isn't murder, not to mention all of the other logical and practical issues with the idea in context to rape. Because of this, murder must logically be evil. When generalized, you end up with the conclusion that force and coercion is evil.
I would classify ethics as more of a biological/psychological theory. For now, it would be best to focus on just humans as the issue is already complex enough to debate. Just as any other scientific theory, it must be internally consistent, and what is suggested to be true must have reason and evidence behind it.
For example, it is common sense that children and babies are in a extremely vulnerable situation in that they can be easily taken advantage of due to their size and mental cognition. This biological difference allows for different ethical rules for different somewhat arbitrary sub classes. So we could certainly agree that two healthy 18 year olds can have sex with each other because they can both agree and have the mental cognition to understand the risks and implications of their actions. Now a health 18 year old and a health 6 year old is a whole other story, though the 18 year old has enough mental cognition to agree to sex, the 6 year old does not just as a fact of how the brain tends to develop, meaning that the 6 year old cannot agree to the sex, making it rape.
I can go on, and really to fully understand the idea of ethics that I adhere to, I suggest listening to this audiobook.
[url]http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_AUDIOBOOK_UPB.mp3[/url]
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Meader;38929233]If neither of you wanted it, you would both be raping each other. You can force yourself to do something you don't want to do. Like if you used sharp instruments or something.
Why the heck would anyone force themselves to do something they don't want to do, you ask? Well in this test, it's because you were told to and you're obligated (either psychologically or physically, doesn't really matter).
Do you want to rape her? Maybe so that the test is accurate (and I can't speak for you here) but I definitely wouldn't enjoy raping someone and I don't think I could, even for a test, and I don't think I'm alone there even if I wanted to have sex with her.
What if you didn't outsmart her? Would she truly be able to rape you with you trying to resist?[/QUOTE]
I feel like I am being misinterpreted here, likely my fault. I may of made a post explaining the idea above.
[QUOTE=Meader;38929233]First off... The opposite of not raping? Your conclusion is that raping is good? (I know you meant the other way around) Lastly, where does the conclusion that because everyone can't do it simultaneously means it's a bad thing come from?[/quote]
Yes, it was a typo.
If ethics are universal, what it good for one person, cannot be bad for another. The idea of rape being good doesn't make sense at all, so it can't be good, which means it is bad. To phrase it another way, good is everything but evil. so if something can't be good, then it is evil.
the "hard" nigga died with his eyes open
didn't know what death was till he was chokin
I was sitting down at an awesome party, at a ++ on the Shulgin scale. I suddenly thought, what if everyone;s high (I literally thought in the ;) and when they smoke weed they get sober.
but sober is the normal state, if everyones normal state was being high then it would still be being sober.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38941543]but sober is the normal state, if everyones normal state was being high then it would still be being sober.[/QUOTE]
But we would all enjoy normal more. Or does that mean we'd all try to reach a state of sober that we are now which would be considered high..//mindfucked
I dunno man after a week of being constantly high I get sick of being high so I think we probably would
But that's the thing. It'd be the norm for us.
yea and I think the reasons drugs are fun is because they take us away from the norm
There are plenty of reasons why drugs are fun, variation from the norm is one of them but not necessarily the dominant factor (depending on drug and individual of course).
[QUOTE=Pepin;38938704]Could you provide a concrete example of where a theory is proven to not reflect reality, yet the validity of this theory remains true? Basically something where a theory is proven wrong in the lab over and over and over, yet the theory is still considered true.[/QUOTE]
I think that's a very poor representation of the issue, particularly since a theory is often an educated guess based on data and then more data are gathered based on predictions of the theory in order to further confirm or refute it. I think a priori knowledge is stronger overall since it can be known through reason alone without reference to sense data. Empirical knowledge must be gathered through potentially faulty sense-data, and then further interpreted through reason. A priori knowledge being refuted by empirical measurement is really just an indicator that the theory was not derived from completely deductive reasoning. For instance, if someone refuted relativity tomorrow, it's not because empiricism is right and the reasoning used to derive it was wrong, it's that parts of such theories are really conjectural.
What makes truly a priori facts like "1 + 1 = 2" so strong is that they are completely irrefutable through empiricism. No amount of measurement is going to make that statement not true.
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
In direct reference to your statement, plenty of theories could remain theoretically valid even after being shown not to reflect reality. The reasoning used to derive them may be valid, but based on conjectures which do not reflect reality.
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
If you refer to specifically to theories like I talk about, which are based on conjectures about things we think are reasonable, then I'd agree to an extent. An experiment is the true test of whether such a theory is correct, but I don't think anything makes theory inherently weaker. It's just the fact that it's usually necessarily based on a conjecture somewhere, except in the case of something like mathematics, where a theorem can be explicitly shown to be true or false with respect to axioms which cannot be proven true or false by their nature, so the term "conjecture" doesn't really apply to them.
(Maybe I'm biased because I want to be a theoretical physicist :v:)
Johnny, I would certainly agree. The theory of ethics I am putting forward is not mine, I liked the book earlier, but here is the basic logic of they theory condensed (found in the book).
[quote]1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by
empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are
false[/quote]
[QUOTE=Pepin;38942240]Johnny, I would certainly agree. The theory of ethics I am putting forward is not mine, I liked the book earlier, but here is the basic logic of they theory condensed (found in the book).[/QUOTE]
Well my friend, it seems your your theory is valid, but not true.
All in all I think you have somewhat evaded what I was trying to ask of you.
If morals are objective, then what objective do they have? Otherwise it seems that you see them to be subjective, and yet you agree that not killing people is a "UPB". Frankly I think you need to answer why it is essentially bad to kill and to steal, even when no-one is looking.
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0BeLz5blM[/media]
i love how johnny rated that one dumb.
i think it's called irony.
oh I get it haha because you think I'm dumb
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
or if it's something else it's probably not irony
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
that guy believes in orgones fyi
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
(otsegolation, not bill hicks)
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38942732]Well my friend, it seems your your theory is valid, but not true.
All in all I think you have somewhat evaded what I was trying to ask of you.
If morals are objective, then what objective do they have? Otherwise it seems that you see them to be subjective, and yet you agree that not killing people is a "UPB". Frankly I think you need to answer why it is essentially bad to kill and to steal, even when no-one is looking.[/QUOTE]
What is difficult to convey is that an implicit agreement in our argument is that truth is better than falsehood. That we will solve our dispute with reason and evidence, and not with random number generators, odd dances, or violence. The theory I am arguing is pretty basic, all I am saying is that ethical theories have to make sense, or at the very least not be false, and you agree with me on this because you are uploading me to this standard.
[QUOTE=Pepin;38950108]What is difficult to convey is that an implicit agreement in our argument is that truth is better than falsehood. That we will solve our dispute with reason and evidence, and not with random number generators, odd dances, or violence. The theory I am arguing is pretty basic, all I am saying is that ethical theories have to make sense, or at the very least not be false, and you agree with me on this because you are uploading me to this standard.[/QUOTE]
First off, I was simply applying your theory to itself to see what would happen. It is valid, but not accurate as it has not been empirically verified.
And Ugh, YOU ARENT SAYING ANYTHING OF VALUE, I can summarize everything you're trying to say by calling you a realist verificationist. Its nothing new. I keep trying to get you to address the core of morality from your viewpoint, and you keep going on about facts. Well tie them together and answer me why killing babies is bad. (Even if the whole world for some reason thought it was ok in some alternate universe lets say).
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38951212]First off, I was simply applying your theory to itself to see what would happen. [B]It is valid, but not accurate as it has not been empirically verified.[/B][/quote]
What is a little frustrating is that you agree with the theory, yet you keep arguing against it. I am suggesting a theory, and you are trying to determine if it is right or not. You are judging my theory based on logic, reason, and evidence. You really want to make sure that I am correct about the ethical theory that I am presenting, and you are putting it through quite the scientific rigor to determine if it is true or false. Would it not make sense to do this with all ethical theories, just like this one?
If you believe that the ethical theory I am presenting at least needs to make sense in order for it to be true, you then must know that the the theory "murder is good" can't be true because it fails basic logical tests. If murder is good, then people must want murder. But murder is unwanted. So the theory requires that you want something that you don't want, which is a glaring contradiction. This theory cannot be true because it is not possible to even test due to failing internal consistency. It would be like a doctor telling you that you ought to ice your ankle and not ice your ankle at the same time. Although you know your doctor is a smart dude, you know that he is wrong about his prescription.
[QUOTE=Pepin;38960614]What is a little frustrating is that you agree with the theory, yet you keep arguing against it. I am suggesting a theory, and you are trying to determine if it is right or not. You are judging my theory based on logic, reason, and evidence. You really want to make sure that I am correct about the ethical theory that I am presenting, and you are putting it through quite the scientific rigor to determine if it is true or false. Would it not make sense to do this with all ethical theories, just like this one?
If you believe that the ethical theory I am presenting at least needs to make sense in order for it to be true, you then must know that the the theory "murder is good" can't be true because it fails basic logical tests. If murder is good, then people must want murder. But murder is unwanted. So the theory requires that you want something that you don't want, which is a glaring contradiction. This theory cannot be true because it is not possible to even test due to failing internal consistency. It would be like a doctor telling you that you ought to ice your ankle and not ice your ankle at the same time. Although you know your doctor is a smart dude, you know that he is wrong about his prescription.[/QUOTE]
I never said I want to judge things in any specific way, I just applied your theory to itself and outputted what the theory suggests for itself. It is valid, but not accurate.
As for your horrible way of addressing this morality issue, you seem to have fallen into an inverted trap that was asked of morality and the gods by Socrates to Euthyphro.
Simply stated you are just saying: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Except now you are taking an atheist socilogical approach, and thus you are basically stating it like this:
"What is morally good is commanded by the common opinion because it is morally good, and it is morally good because it is commanded by public opinion."
This is circular logic, and you have gotten me no closer to answering why murdering is bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.