Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The Philosophy discussion


Ilunga

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

Morals......................question

 

 

Killing...........is it ok to kill?

Well our morals say no, it is not ok

But it is during a time of war

 

Stealing........is it ok to steal?

Well our morals say no

But during a famine is it ok?

 

That is just 2 that come to mind. So is it ok? Is it morally ok, to protect someone, by killing another?

I say it is situational..........

 

What about child marriages?

Well in Canada, if a child was married and having sex at 12

We would arrest the man/women

In Africa, it is accepted in some area's

 

My point is, in North America, we judge other people by our own ideals

which are based on our own upbringing or situation

 

Our laws are based on our moralities

 

Take in part Russian people

They judge us in the west based on what they know

what they have been told

We assume that they would have a TV

We assume that the TV announcer would tell them the truth

as we see it.............

 

It reminds me of the saying

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

 

Perspective and situations, are what dictate, how we see things......

Morality is best served when one follows general principles instead of specific rules (i.e. the context matters).  Laws need to be specific and while laws are often based on morality they are a different kind of rule making (and both are important).  Morality can't be defined fully by specific inflexible rules.  Please see my original post for more details on the stages of moral development.  Here's a useful chart to understand the progression (however it isn't definitive, just a good general framework - there are others as well).

 

1485085521_moralhierarchy.jpg.4eaabe6d01da11b131ad8f74bf31a964.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thrago said:

Religion is something that has perplexed me my entire life at least my rationally thinking part of my life so from the ages of 8-10 onwards if not earlier.  Anything I say hopefully wont offend anyone as it is the furthest thing from my intent however I recognize that what I say might offend, but that is not my intent.

 

When I was a kid my grandmother was very religious and when we would visit her she would force me to go to church with her.  I remember having conversation with her and being frustrated that somehow she actually believed there are for lack of a better term a magical being or beings aka God/Gods.  As much as I've tried my whole life to try and understand why or how someone can believe this, I haven't been able to come up with any rational reason why anyone could honestly believe.   Some small part of me thinks no one actually believes but are just hedging there bets incase they are wrong, but I doubt that's true.   

 

I think that a lot of Atheist's struggle with this also as it causes a disconnect between them and a large part of society.  It boggles my mind that people believe these things that in my mind are so obviously not true (please note I said in my mind).  It's something I find impossible to reconcile that people believe something that again in my mind is blatantly untrue.   

 

I've researched religions endlessly at times in an attempt to believe or a best understand, but that has actually done the opposite.  I consider myself to be very open minded to all things and try not to judge others but religion has always been a sticking point, I can't get past despite a lot of effort on my part.

 

Religion is something at times I have thought about a lot and I could have conversations literally days, however I would unintendingly offend some.  Which I find odd because I take no offense to people telling me I'm wrong and would actually welcome someone giving me a reason I could actually believe.

 

So back to the topic, despite my efforts and wants to believe or at the very least understand religion, I just can't.  Which brings me to the point I can't see how like me and religion everyone will ever be able agree on how the world should be as surely people will have ideas that they just can't reconcile with other like I struggle with Religion.  As the only way I think it possible for me to ever believe in a God/Gods would be for them to come tap me on the shoulder and do things that would prove it but even then I would probably think I was just losing my mind.   

I think that it would be best for our society (and indeed all societies) if we could discuss ethics without religion.  They don't need to be linked.  But it is the religious people who almost always want to link ethics to religion.  One of the most inflexible features of almost any religion is that morality comes directly from a god, and we humans are dependent on that god for our morality (and therefore dependent on the clergy to interpret the word of god).  Religious authorities like having that power over people and don't want to give it up.  However it is clear that many people who don't believe in any gods can and do act ethically.  And likewise many people who do believe in a god can act unethically.  There is no evidence for the existence of any gods but there is certainly evidence for humans acting ethically (and unethically).  Gods may or may not exist, we can't know that for sure, but it seems pretty unlikely based on the available evidence.  What we do know for sure is that humans can act ethically if they want to and this is not seemingly dependent on any god, or humans who like to speak for gods.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nux_win said:

However it is clear that many people who don't believe in any gods can and do act ethically.  

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" strikes me as good advice regardless of whether a person believes in a God or not.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" strikes me as good advice regardless of whether a person believes in a God or not.

In most cases but not always.  It seems to work for big ticket items like murder or armed robbery but not as much for smaller transgressions.  What if someone doesn't want the same thing as you?  There are frequently extenuating circumstances so that's why in ethics it is better to follow a general principle, like for example just having compassion and empathy for others, rather than adhering to any specific rule.  Killing someone is generally unacceptable but in self defence or in a war it changes the equation.  Ethics can't really be boiled down into a simple all encompassing rule.  I do however agree that ethics aren't related to whether or not one believes in a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" strikes me as good advice regardless of whether a person believes in a God or not.

As you know it's  the code I live my life by.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nux_win said:

In most cases but not always.  It seems to work for big ticket items like murder or armed robbery but not as much for smaller transgressions.  What if someone doesn't want the same thing as you?  There are frequently extenuating circumstances so that's why in ethics it is better to follow a general principle, like for example just having compassion and empathy for others, rather than adhering to any specific rule.  Killing someone is generally unacceptable but in self defence or in a war it changes the equation.  Ethics can't really be boiled down into a simple all encompassing rule.  I do however agree that ethics aren't related to whether or not one believes in a god.

 

We rationalise that killing people in wars is acceptable.

That's why our species continues to kill each other for no rational purpose. 

 

 

If there is a golden rule ethically wise it is, treat others the way you wish to be treated.

 

It boils down to you don't want to be ##$#$# with so don't ##$#$# with others. 

 

I posted an article  earlier in this thread which details how morality Evolved long before religion began.

 

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

We rationalise that killing people in wars is acceptable.

That's why our species continues to kill each other for no rational purpose. 

 

 

If there is a golden rule ethically wise it is, treat others the way you wish to be treated.

 

It boils down to you don't want to be ##$#$# with so don't ##$#$# with others. 

 

I posted an article  earlier in this thread which details how morality Evolved long before religion began.

 

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/

 

 

 

 

 

I don't like wars.  I'm a pacifist.  But at the same time, ethically at least, I accept the right of someone to defend themselves if attacked.  And sometimes that means having to kill someone.  That's true in personal self defence or the defence of a whole country.  Starting a fight or invading someone else is a different story (and obviously unethical).  

 

There is a second problem with the "do unto others..." rule.  Namely, what if the other person wants something different than you do?  It assumes that all people want the same thing and I don't think that's true.

 

Again, genuine ethics comes down to following a general principle, and therefore allowing exceptions, rather than strict adherence to a specific rule.  Mind you, if you are going to follow a rule, I suppose that's not a bad one, but in ethics it's better not to follow rules at all but rather use things like good judgement and empathy based on the situation.  Law may be based on ethics but law and ethics are different things.  Laws need to be specific in order to address real world issues.  Ethics are somewhat more abstract than that.  And I suppose I'm arguing that they are necessarily more abstract if you really want to be highly ethical.  Rules are just approximations of ethics.

 

P.S. - If people insist on following rules, maybe a slightly better rule would be to treat people how they want to be treated.  However even that has exceptions.  The best thing is just to be nice to people and have respect, but that can change based on the situation.

Edited by nux_win
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nux_win said:

In most cases but not always.  It seems to work for big ticket items like murder or armed robbery but not as much for smaller transgressions.  What if someone doesn't want the same thing as you?  There are frequently extenuating circumstances so that's why in ethics it is better to follow a general principle, like for example just having compassion and empathy for others, rather than adhering to any specific rule.  Killing someone is generally unacceptable but in self defence or in a war it changes the equation.  Ethics can't really be boiled down into a simple all encompassing rule.  I do however agree that ethics aren't related to whether or not one believes in a god.

religion is often the excuse to act unethically though. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

This is called the platinum rule.

I had a HR director teach me about it when I was running some retail shops. 

it comes down to basic empathy, I think. Thats what seems to be missing a lot of the time. 

 

My dad used to put his employees through AA if they needed it,  instead of firing them. They could go get cleaned up and their job was waiting for them, this was back in the days when people could still get canned for that. Thats more powerful to me than someone telling me what to think from a religious pov. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JM_ said:

religion is often the excuse to act unethically though. 

By otherwise unethical people. Religion isn't the cause of unethical behaviour on it's own, not true religion at least. And false religion, created by those with corrupt motives, is what is conveniently held up to criticism by those arguing against God in general. 

 

All religious institutions are corrupt, false. It stands to reason as any institution that gains power in any form becomes more or less corrupt. 

 

When citing institutional dogmas or unfortunate acts of men in the name of God as proof of the absurdity of the existence of God, the better response might be to think of a God that you would approve of. As Blaise Pascall said: "The things of man must be known in order to be loved; the things of God must be loved in order to be known."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frank einstein said:

By otherwise unethical people. Religion isn't the cause of unethical behaviour on it's own, not true religion at least. And false religion, created by those with corrupt motives, is what is conveniently held up to criticism by those arguing against God in general. 

 

All religious institutions are corrupt, false. It stands to reason as any institution that gains power in any form becomes more or less corrupt. 

 

When citing institutional dogmas or unfortunate acts of men in the name of God as proof of the absurdity of the existence of God, the better response might be to think of a God that you would approve of. As Blaise Pascall said: "The things of man must be known in order to be loved; the things of God must be loved in order to be known."

 

 

I think what the institutional aspect shows is how little you need them. I never really understood the need for a mediating body between a person and their creator. It just creates structures that foster abuse. 

 

But its not just corrupt people that look to their particular religion for ethical guidance. Look at US evangelicals, are all the ones voting for anti-gay politicians corrupt? or just mislead ethically?

 

Edited by JM_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JM_ said:

religion is often the excuse to act unethically though. 

"Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion."  (I don't know who said that but I can't claim it as original)

 

I think that there is some truth to that saying but that doesn't mean that all religious people act unethically.  Some of them are actually quite nice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nux_win said:

"Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion."  (I don't know who said that but I can't claim it as original)

 

I think that there is some truth to that saying but that doesn't mean that all religious people act unethically.  Some of them are actually quite nice. 

no certainly not all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

This is called the platinum rule.

I had a HR director teach me about it when I was running some retail shops. 

It's a slight improvement but the point I'm trying to make is that rules only get you so far in ethics (see the diagram back in my earlier posts).  Fully developed ethics requires following general principles instead (i.e. allowing for exceptions).

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nux_win said:

It's a slight improvement but the point I'm trying to make is that rules only get you so far in ethics (see the diagram back in my earlier posts).  Fully developed ethics requires following general principles instead (i.e. allowing for exceptions).

I understand.

I was just pointing it out. Every time i read the golden rule mentioned, I think about the platinum rule and you ended up bringing it up as a good perspective. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, nux_win said:

I don't like wars.  I'm a pacifist.  But at the same time, ethically at least, I accept the right of someone to defend themselves if attacked.  And sometimes that means having to kill someone.  That's true in personal self defence or the defence of a whole country.  Starting a fight or invading someone else is a different story (and obviously unethical).  

 

There is a second problem with the "do unto others..." rule.  Namely, what if the other person wants something different than you do?  It assumes that all people want the same thing and I don't think that's true.

 

Again, genuine ethics comes down to following a general principle, and therefore allowing exceptions, rather than strict adherence to a specific rule.  Mind you, if you are going to follow a rule, I suppose that's not a bad one, but in ethics it's better not to follow rules at all but rather use things like good judgement and empathy based on the situation.  Law may be based on ethics but law and ethics are different things.  Laws need to be specific in order to address real world issues.  Ethics are somewhat more abstract than that.  And I suppose I'm arguing that they are necessarily more abstract if you really want to be highly ethical.  Rules are just approximations of ethics.

 

P.S. - If people insist on following rules, maybe a slightly better rule would be to treat people how they want to be treated.  However even that has exceptions.  The best thing is just to be nice to people and have respect, but that can change based on the situation.

Being nice to people and treating them with respect is exactly how I  want them treat to me, ergo so treat others the way I expect to be treated. 

Who doesn't wanted to be treated kindly and with respect. 

 

So what if they want something different, that doesn't mean you should not treat them with kindness and respect.

 

And if people #$#$ with you it's even more important to treat them nicely and with respect.

That's being true to yourself and that is the only real thing one can take to the grave. 

 

You wouldn't believe what I have been through in the last five years in regards to my ex and custody of my son.

Even though she has treated me in a way that she, or anyone for that matter, would want to be treated, I still treat her with kindness and respect. 

That's being true to myself and doing the right, simply because it's the right thing to do.

 

As for killing someone, as I have stated you have just rationalised it. 

Thats what human beings do. 

Before you state would I kill someone in defense of someone I love, no I would not.

I have trained myself to be able to defend myself and those I love so I can defend them without having to kill the person/s who might try to hurt them. 

 

If I lived where a war started I would get myself and my loved ones away from that area.

Nothing is worth killing or dying for.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...