19 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChill, robbo, this is an internet forum, not a chat room, so you have to be a little more patient.
ok seeing that you will not forward your opinions, i must assume that you hold every individual to be a free moral agent, this fact was established at the nuremberg trials, i provide a following reference for your perusal,
Nuremberg Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not re ...[text shortened]... ell, if not, then their silence is indicative of their acquiescence and will be taken as such.
from this statement it is quite clear that every individual has an innate sense of morality, regardless of the culture or immediate society which may impose certain values upon the individual.
Moral, in that sense, is what the Nuremberg Trials define as moral. The ethics exposed by them are anchored in a particular culture and philosophy, even if their intention was to be as broad as possible. There is no unconditional ethical statement. Don't get me wrong, I agree that some principles (such as human rights) should be upheld everywhere, but I do not fool myself into thinking that this is "natural".
Your statements afterwards are contradictory, even if I had accepted your initial premise regarding innate morality. You claim that an innate morality is suppressed by the imposition of laws, except Christian ones. Not to mention you misrepresent all three religions and claim it to be self-evident (i.e. a baseless assertion).
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by ahosyneyThere were streets and nations in pre-civilized times? Wow. Very post-pre-civilized. By the way, how do you know about the sexual habits of hunter-gatherers? Are we talking Homo Sapiens here?
So what you are defending is basicly the same behavior of pre-cilization nations. No one know who is his father is, and it is normal to watch people doing sex on streets.
In the very first examples of criminal law that we know of (like the Code of Hammurabi) adultery is severely punished. It's hard to imagine how they would go from free sexual orgies on the "streets" to the death penalty.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Palynkano my dear sir i do not find this contradictory in the slightest, for when every act of life is dictated as was in the case with Judaism and afterward Islam and more recently Nazism, especially in matters of morality then what occurs is nothing short of the suppression of conscience. there is no need to exercise the conscience for the moral aspect has in a sense already been taken care of, has it not? this is why muslims are so incensed when one presses them on matters of their religion, it is not based on reason but has its tenets in ritual and indoctrination, therefore unable to provide reasonable grounds for such and such an action they resort to emotion and become incensed, is it not so?
Chill, robbo, this is an internet forum, not a chat room, so you have to be a little more patient.
[b]from this statement it is quite clear that every individual has an innate sense of morality, regardless of the culture or immediate society which may impose certain values upon the individual.
Moral, in that sense, is what the Nuremberg Trials defin ...[text shortened]... misrepresent all three religions and claim it to be self-evident (i.e. a baseless assertion).[/b]
thus i do not think that you can state that the findings of the Nuremberg trial were anchored in a particular culture or philosophy, granted the allies knew of the stance the defendants would take before hand and the principles established were then perhaps initiated with an agenda, however the principle itself transcends culture and philosophy and is therefore quite applicable with regard to religious atrocities.
why would you say that the exercise of conscience is not natural? is it conscience or the exercising of it in moral issues that you find unnatural? i myself stated it was self evident, because for example consider black beetles statement with regard to the horrors of sharia law, his whole being responded against the injustice of it! are we ourselves not naturally incensed when we behold injustice, or an abuse of power when some innocent suffers?
that there are simply only two laws within the realms of Christianity as practiced by Christ i think it is quite correct to conclude that in the absence of a plethora of others a christian has free will to exercise of the conscience in all sorts of matters, and because these two laws are based on the guiding principle of love their intent will always be for good, for what greater motivational force can there be than love? this natural and humane action of free exercise of conscience is denied to Judaism and Islam and thus we see reason why atrocities, injustices and almost unimaginable cruelty are perpetrated on a daily basis on innocent women and children, for how else can one account for this?
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou asked me before to write more clearly. I would appreciate it if you also made an effort to write clearly and with correct punctuation.
no my dear sir i do not find this contradictory in the slightest, for when every act of life is dictated as was in the case with Judaism and afterward Islam and more recently Nazism, especially in matters of morality then what occurs is nothing short of the suppression of conscience. there is no need to exercise the conscience for the moral aspect h ...[text shortened]... petrated on a daily basis on innocent women and children, for how else can one account for this?
when every act of life is dictated as was in the case with Judaism and afterward Islam
Baseless assertions. Hermeneutics are very important in both religions.
however the principle itself transcends culture and philosophy and is therefore quite applicable with regard to religious atrocities.
That a particular set of ethics can be applied universally does not mean it is universally accepted. In the case of Nuremberg, it was clearly imposed to the defendants. Note that this is not saying that I believe they were wrong to do so.
why would you say that the exercise of conscience is not natural?
I didn't. Please read again.
are we ourselves not naturally incensed when we behold injustice, or an abuse of power when some innocent suffers?
Evidently, not everybody. Those committing the injustice and particularly those who accept such acts to be committed are not 'naturally incensed'. You see, you need to claim that what is just and what is unjust are natural, not merely that your anger is natural, given your particular set of ethics.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOh, of course on topic Bosse;
On topic, probably:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-11-19-antiwomen-cabinet-riles-pakistans-activists
Anyway I am aware of the fact that today there is a war inside Islam regarding Islam. I wish to all the progressive Muslims to find the way out and brake free into a pure democracy, created from them in order to serve them.
19 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkano its not a baseless assertion, infact if you knew anything about Judaism you would realize that their study of the texts infact led them to adopt two types of laws, those of a textual basis and a supplementary or oral law. eventually the textual laws were superseded by these laws, that is why Christ stated of the pharisees, 'you have made the word of god invalid because of your traditions', that these laws governed every aspect of a persons life cannot be readily disputed, therefore make sure before you make a claim that something is baseless that it actually is otherwise you're own claim to validity is in effect quite baseless!
You asked me before to write more clearly. I would appreciate it if you also made an effort to write clearly and with correct punctuation.
[b]when every act of life is dictated as was in the case with Judaism and afterward Islam
Baseless assertions. Hermeneutics are very important in both religions.
however the principle itself transcends cult just are natural, not merely that your anger is natural, given your particular set of ethics.
interestingly the Muslims have done the same, they have the textual or Koranic verses and the 'haddith', or sayings of the prophet, which are open to much debate, and no wonder some are quite scandalous!
no one is saying that it was accepted universally, what are you trying to say here? i merely stated that the principle in itself was a universal one, not its acceptance or otherwise????
therefore how do you account for the innate sense of conscience?
and the whole basis of my argument rests on the assertion that they are not 'naturally incensed', because this natural exercise of the conscience has been superseded, refute it if you will!
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh robbie dude my trustee feer,
no its not a baseless assertion, infact if you knew anything about Judaism you would realize that their study of the texts infact led them to adopt two types of laws, those of a textual basis and a supplementary or oral law. eventually the textual laws were superseded by these laws, that is why Christ stated of the pharisees, 'you have made the word ...[text shortened]... cause this natural exercise of the conscience has been superseded, refute it if you will!
over here it seems to me that you try to combine the pricipals of your religion with the principals of the ethical rationalism, you foxy leggedy beastie; oh if this debate was a chess game between you and me you would end right o into zugzwang!
So it goes like this:
You see, the ehtical qualities which you consider them as "natural" are not natural but they derive from the philosophical view that the "Good", the "Virtue" and the ethical virtues overall is possible to be spotted and defined by means of the right string of thoughts via the accurate definition of their essense -and nothing else, no Holy Spirit, no God, no nothing! Amongst the most famous ethical rationalists of the world remains Socrates, which he was always insisting that the Virtue is definately related with the full awareness/ consciousness of the individual, and thus with his knowledge; so he showed that the Human has to act in any case in full consiousness of the consequences -but alas, ye bletherin dunderheid, the Human is not born with this Virtue and he has to fight hard in order to achieve it. Of course the Christian ethic is an ethic of the sentiments due to the fact that its most important pricipal is Love, a sentiment. And later the Christians used the concept of the "Moral Law", which as we already know thanks to Kant is out of order.
Zugzwang
😵
19 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleah beetle dude, i salute you and thank god that i make my defense before a Greek well versed in the philosophical traditions that are part and parcel of his lineage.
Oh robbie dude my trustee feer,
over here it seems to me that you try to combine the pricipals of your religion with the principals of the ethical rationalism, you foxy leggedy beastie; oh if this debate was a chess game between you and me you would end right o into zugzwang!
So it goes like this:
You see, the ehtical qualities which you consider he "Moral Law", which as we already know thanks to Kant is out of order.
Zugzwang
😵
i myself when i was much younger read the philosophical works of Plato and my hero naturally became Socrates, the four dialogues were my favorite, in which it seemed Socrates argued so brilliantly in the face of 'apparent or mere knowledge', 'opinion', as it is termed that i admired the clarity of thought and the motivation for truth, not to mention the wily ol foxes propensity for forgetting things.
Correct me if i am wrong because it has been such a long time since i read these dialogues, but virtue to an ancient Greek was in the sense that the desired effect was a defining characteristic of the intent of the object under question and was produced in a tangible way, thus i remember reading that a pencil has virtue if it writes well, a cow has virtue if it produces good milk etc etc all actions which help us determine whether the object under question can stake a claim to being virtuous or otherwise? therefore from this definition is it not quite plain to see in the actions of men, whether this 'train of thought', as you state leads them to a virtuous action or not? thus the indoctrination of the Nazis as well as other belief systems has a profound effect on this train of thought and may be determined from the actions which they produce, is it not so my learned friend,
that the qualities which are innate to all humans seems universal, for when you go to the shop and buy a piece of merchandise and get ripped off, you feel the injustice of it, why? because you have an innate sense of justice, the same would be true in any part of the world! thus when we see innocents being abused we do not reason that it must be just and right, no, our whole being fights against it and we must contain our sentiments otherwise we may resort to some retributive act. the point i am trying to make is that yes we acknowledge these things consciously, even rationally, but the effect that this produces is a sentiment is it not? we loathe those individuals and want to cut their balls off with a rusty saw! thus if our convictions do not lead us to the path of virtue, making us even more aware of the necessity to be loving, kind, just, tolerant, forgiving etc etc then what use are they? for by the ancient Greek definition of virtue they are nothing of the sort and we might as well go off hunting the ancient haggis or searching for the last living dragon on earth, the Loch Ness monster
regards to you my noble friend, for in you i find more virtue than many a professed christian, myself included
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh robbie,
ah beetle dude, i salute you and thank god that i make my defense before a Greek well versed in the philosophical traditions that are part and parcel of his lineage.
i myself when i was much younger read the philosophical works of Plato and my hero naturally became Socrates, the four dialogues were my favorite, in which it seemed Socrates argued ...[text shortened]... ble friend, for in you i find more virtue than many a professed christian, myself included
the virtue that you name is the Socratic anthropic virtue allright (the virtue of the water, the vitrue of the milk etc), which Socrates was discriminating it from the so called political virtue (the virtue which it characterises the Human as a vivid member of the society). Everything has its virtue, used to say my ancestors, and in that case the virtue was the quality and the essence of every object.
Aristotle insisted that there are the virtue of the Mind and the virtue of the Morals: the moral (ethical) virtues are the result of the ability of the individual to train hiself for becoming able to control his emotions and his instict in order to react logically (Golden Rule), whilst the virtues of the Mind are not related with the Golden Rule -and they are two, Fronisis and Sofia.
Fronisis has to do with the practical thought and it supports the "good/ decent life" (ef zein), whilst Sofia is plain to be seen in Art, Philosophy and Sciences.
So the debate revolves like this: Aristotle was sure that the moral virtue is achieved solely when the individual forces hiself to live under the Golden Rule due to the fact that the right reasoning should be used in order to help him to bring up the "right" actions; and, due to the fact that the awareness of the individual leads him into taking actions, then his Knowledge is changing into Act, thus we are talking about Morality. If I understood you well, this must be your point.
On the contrary, Socrates was thinking that the awareness of the individual is the sole agent which the Human needs in order to achieve the Virtue; also he was claiming constantly that the biggest power of the Human is Knowledge and Science. This happens to be my point too.
Therefore, "when I go to the shop and I buy a piece of merchandise and I get myself ripped off", I feel the "injustice" thanks to my awareness and my common sens, therefore I am able to react the way I act solely thanks to my Knowledge. The Knowledge of the Virtue is the sole quality which it forces me to try to keep up achieving it (the Virtue) constantly -I just have to be There and to keep up evaluating, because no Evaluation (via common sens) means that I am unable to discriminate! So nothing holy over here, we just keep up learning eis tous aionas ton aionon, and know is obvious why Socrates said that he knows solely that he knows nothing.
So I do not Feel the injustice, but I Evaluate that in this case there is injustice, and only Then, only after my evaluation, I Feel the way I Feel, my friend. And now please feel free to claim that in your opinion this happens because your "God" made it happen🙂
A man of virtue, this miserable atheist black beetle?? Never ever! This would be at least offensive for my filthy honey-tongued brother Bosse de Nage, the Vinyl worshipper
😵
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by black beetleThe way an individual behaves in his bedroom is not your business.
The way an individual behaves in his bedroom is not your business.
Adultery is not a crime; it is a "crime" solely for people which they share the same religionist beliefs with you.
So what I am actually defending is the right of the individual to enjoy his sex life the way he wants with the person(s) he wants, whilst his companion feels just th ...[text shortened]... ck of religionists. You are free to enjoy Sharia though -in your respected country, that is.
When it comes to the spread of a diseases like AIDS then it is my business!!!
When it comes to the spread of porn related industry which have the same effect as drugs on many people then it is my business!!!
When it comes to the spread of raping, children with no families, the pregnancy of teens and children then it is my business!!!
If that doesn't concern you it is your problem but prophet Mohammed said in a Hadith, what could be translated as:
" If adultery spread in any nation Allah will punish them with diseases that they never knew before"
And I can see that clearly happening now , and his prophecy came true and clear like the sun in the sky.
-------
Adultery is not a crime; it is a "crime" solely for people which they share the same religionist beliefs with you.
I'm sure at least one fourth of the population of the earth don't agree with you (I'm not sure may be more).
And they think of you and whoever think like you as a barbaric person who want to return with human civilization to stone ages.
Why you think you are right and they are wrong?
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by ahosyneyDo you really understand English or do you not?
[b]The way an individual behaves in his bedroom is not your business.
When it comes to the spread of a diseases like AIDS then it is my business!!!
When it comes to the spread of porn related industry which have the same effect as drugs on many people then it is my business!!!
When it comes to the spread of raping, children with no families, th ...[text shortened]... ith human civilization to stone ages.
Why you think you are right and they are wrong?[/b]
I said time and time again that adultery is not a crime the way Sharia "law" considers it. A divorce is enough. A divorce would be enough even if the adulterer was having a mega party in the middle of an avenue at 11:00 in the morning with 11 drunk sailors together with 14 duzzlin hookers and 29 bysexuals and 32 trannies (not to mention the 3 pure dead middle-aged ever ready sodomites) in front of 4.444 eye witnesses.
When it comes to the spread of diseases like AIDS then we have to promote the prophylactic means and to school the people accurately in order to learn how to protect themselves properly. Definately we do not need your religionist hysteria, darling.
When it comes to the spread of porn related industry we have to fight hard in order to promote the rights of the women and to ensure that they would get the proper education so they could become able to live decently without being forced to earn their life through prostitution.
When it comes to the spread of rape we have the secular law to take care of the situation. The pregnancy of the teens can be fought with the proper education too, and surely there 's anytime the right of the pregnant woman and of the pregnant girl to have an abortion if she wishes to act so.
I don't give a fig for the Hadith and for whatever the Prophet said, as I don't give a fig for any kind of "holy scriptures". Keep up preaching your children and your wife(s), but preach me not.
Maybe one fourth of the population of the Earth do not agree with me. So what?
I am a barbaric person, you bet. I am a barbaric person because I consider that Sharia and religionism are disgusting.
And still, I wait for you to answer my simple questions regarding
1. The death of them girls in Nigeria
2. The Jyllands-Posten issue and
3. The issue regarding the murder of Theo Van Gogh;
I am sure that you will keep up ignoring these questions. You could, ahosyney, even bring up a Hadith ot two in order to explain why you so carefully refuse to answer them.
Who knows, afterall? Maybe the will of the Prophet is to have them girls murdered for nothing; maybe the Prophet wanted to have the embassies of Denmark destroyed merely because of the fabrications of two beloved imams of his; and maybe he wanted to have an infidel murdered by a pure believer because he dared to question the virtue of the Muslims.
😵
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagehonestly my friends, it is almost too much to bear, i weep deep within for those girls and hope that the sadness does not overwhelm, Pakistan, that fallacious holy land, an Islamic republic, an abomination on the face of the earth
It's also for robbie qua robbie.
19 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetlebeetle this is incredibly interesting! if i understand you correctly then it seems, according to Aristotle that reason is not the product itself, but rather the catalyst for producing right action or virtue. however i myself find this quite erroneous, because as has been shown at Nuremberg and elsewhere, reason is not above the moral judgment of conscience. for example it may be argued that Nazi atrocities were the product of 'wrong reasoning', that slavery for example could be rationally argued on the basis of reason to be 'good' on an economic level, but not when subjected to the moral judgment of conscience, no siree, therefore i think we can safely dispel this erroneous thinking.
Oh robbie,
the virtue that you name is the Socratic anthropic virtue allright (the virtue of the water, the vitrue of the milk etc), which Socrates was discriminating it from the so called political virtue (the virtue which it characterises the Human as a vivid member of the society). Everything has its virtue, used to say my ancestors, and in that c offensive for my filthy honey-tongued brother Bosse de Nage, the Vinyl worshipper
😵
as for Socrates and his famous maxim, 'know yourself', what can one say? for example if one knows one is a slippery honey tongued vinyl worshiper as in the case of Bosse, but one has not the moral sense or judgment to extricate oneself to the path of virtue and be free of these delusions then he remains as he is, is it not so? knowing what one is and having recourse to resources that enable us to readjust ourselves in a virtuous manner is no mean task, for as the poet stated, 'its a winsome gift tae gie us, tae see ourselves as others see us!'' therefore i would argue that one needs to appeal to higher virtues than human virtue which is limited in duration and scope of the individual and thus flawed as a consequence and petition the very gods themselves! (these virtues for me personally are found in biblical scripture and in essence are unselfishness and modesty, kindness and generosity, loyalty and fidelity etc etc, qualities exemplified in the Christ himself!)
So come with me to the summit of mount Olympias my friend and we shall petition the gods and seek this wisdom which is able to transcend every human philosophy and creed and finds itself embodied in the universal human conscience, god given and divine!