“You’ll comply when you have a gun in your face…”

JemyM said:

To know the form water will take it helps to know the atoms in the single water molecule, but you must also know how molecules align with eachother, the form of the container as well as the temperature.

With this analogy I try to explain the fundamental flaw in trying to study morality by studying the single individual. Saying morality is relative is a bit like saying evolution is random when its driven by natural selection.

First we can establish that despite variation, if you know math, probability is quite deterministic. When you study behavior in large numbers, individual behavior pretty much disappear, you get a rather absolute middleground.

Second, studying morality within the individual is to study internet by screwing up the modem. Morality have a lot to do with social adaption meaning you must look at how people interact with eachother if you want to study morality.

Third, while the individual haven't changed for million of years, experience does. We wouldnt be flying now if we didn't have a cummulative experience that piled on top of eachother for generations. Ethics is also based on experience. If you wish to maximize your potential of doing the right thing, learning about past experiences is really the best cause of action.

Speaking about morality, it's the day after the celebration after my last exam in psychology, and I have a hangover that makes me see stars jumping in front of my eyes so I apologize if my sentences might get incoherrent.

Click to expand...

Reads as if you have been indoctrinated into communist rhetoric. You deny the individual and associate it all as water (an inhumane object) and then say it's all relative and there's no solid foundation of morality.

The issue with this sort of thinking is that it lays a foundation where those in control can twist reality and perception through 'fear and want' in order to make those under them do horrific things. If the foundation is on sand.......

The individual is the root of society, not the other way around. Please learn this. If not, then the individual is worthless and human dignity is gone. We are divine creatures and have inalienable rights and they are not negotiable to the whims of the tyrannical mob. Counter to what you imply with wishy-washy thinking, there are universal laws. And that goes for morals as well as human rights. I'm not talking about right and wrong. I'm talking about universal laws. If these laws are broken, we suffer due to our own lack of skills to live and prosper here in this universe.

Daroou said:

We are divine creatures and have inalienable rights and they are not negotiable to the whims of the tyrannical mob.

Click to expand...

Can I haz proof?

Daroou said:

I'm not talking about right and wrong.

Click to expand...

That's funny, because I'd say that's exactly what you're talking about.

Übereil

Daroou said:

Reads as if you have been indoctrinated into communist rhetoric. You deny the individual and associate it all as water (an inhumane object) and then say it's all relative and there's no solid foundation of morality.

Click to expand...

I am quite used to be called all sort of labels by people... liberal... socialist... communist... conservative... nazi... christian... My favorite is being called a muslim. As always, these labels have very little to do with me. I am politically unaligned. What all of these have in common is that they come from various dichotomies that doesn't exist beyond the labelers own head. The label say more about the labeler than the labeled.

It seems you cannot distinguish the basic theory behind both sociology, anthropology and sociology and eh... "communists". Both the anthropologist and the sociologist have the perspective that there is something that exists between individuals, where as the social psychologist looks at how individuals function in groups. Neither "deny" the individual.

Speaking about rhetoric, what's "you shall not make analogies between humans and inhumane object" all about? If you find it wrong perhaps you should present a good reason why it's wrong instead of just spouting it there.

Finally if you reach the conclusion that I said all is relative and there is no solid foundation of morality you clearly failed to grasp what I was saying and ride on a strawman. As we see further down this conclusion seems to have alot to do with trying to patch a worldview you haven't reached on your own, one you haven't reached through your own reasoning and your own logical deductions. You are thus not arguing with me, you are in fact arguing with yourself.

Daroou said:

The issue with this sort of thinking is that it lays a foundation where those in control can twist reality and perception through 'fear and want' in order to make those under them do horrific things. If the foundation is on sand…….

Click to expand...

It seems you are presenting your primary thought-stopping cliché. It seems you are emotionally locked (by fear) into not testing your worldview to see if it stands critical thinking. You believe that trying to establish a foundation through reason is dangerous because "those in control" may do evil things to us. Since you haven't reasoned yourself to your worldview you also give the appearence of someone who try to patch up a boat filled with holes because you never learned to build your own. How can you even hope to protect sound moral principles if you do not know the reason behind them?

Daroou said:

The individual is the root of society, not the other way around. Please learn this.

Click to expand...

You are presenting a false dichotomy that got obsolete in the academia after the 70'ies and 80'ies in favor for a dualist perspective.

Daroou said:

If not, then the individual is worthless and human dignity is gone. We are divine creatures and have inalienable rights and they are not negotiable to the whims of the tyrannical mob.
Counter to what you imply with wishy-washy thinking, there are universal laws. And that goes for morals as well as human rights. I'm not talking about right and wrong. I'm talking about universal laws. If these laws are broken, we suffer due to our own lack of skills to live and prosper here in this universe.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Uhm. At this point I say you are ammoral. You reason like a computer who can print laws but not comprehend the reason behind laws.

JemyM said:

I am quite used to be called all sort of labels by people… liberal… socialist… communist… conservative… nazi… christian… My favorite is being called a muslim. As always, these labels have very little to do with me. I am politically unaligned. What all of these have in common is that they come from various dichotomies that doesn't exist beyond the labelers own head. The label say more about the labeler than the labeled.

It seems you cannot distinguish the basic theory behind both sociology, anthropology and sociology and eh… "communists". Both the anthropologist and the sociologist have the perspective that there is something that exists between individuals, where as the social psychologist looks at how individuals function in groups. Neither "deny" the individual.

Speaking about rhetoric, what's "you shall not make analogies between humans and inhumane object" all about? If you find it wrong perhaps you should present a good reason why it's wrong instead of just spouting it there.

Finally if you reach the conclusion that I said all is relative and there is no solid foundation of morality you clearly failed to grasp what I was saying and ride on a strawman. As we see further down this conclusion seems to have alot to do with trying to patch a worldview you haven't reached on your own, one you haven't reached through your own reasoning and your own logical deductions. You are thus not arguing with me, you are in fact arguing with yourself.



It seems you are presenting your primary thought-stopping cliché. It seems you are emotionally locked (by fear) into not testing your worldview to see if it stands critical thinking. You believe that trying to establish a foundation through reason is dangerous because "those in control" may do evil things to us. Since you haven't reasoned yourself to your worldview you also give the appearence of someone who try to patch up a boat filled with holes because you never learned to build your own. How can you even hope to protect sound moral principles if you do not know the reason behind them?



You are presenting a false dichotomy that got obsolete in the academia after the 70'ies and 80'ies in favor for a dualist perspective.



Yeah. Uhm. At this point I say you are ammoral. You reason like a computer who can print laws but not comprehend the reason behind laws.

Click to expand...

tell us how everything is deterministic again