-
In total there are 33 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 33 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
"Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- lehelvandor
-
Freshman
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
- 9
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 104 times
- Contact:
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
Yep, but it only described the 'reasoning' and the strength of arguments... with all the rhetoric, it was and is deplorable and terribly weak (see how the very things he accuses others of, when confronted with simple reasoning, are actually used all the time... I find it the most ironic, certain scientologists and truly remarkable bigots I have met in my life were able to actually control their tone and build a convincing facade, but this here is just hilarious) - also acceptable it seems on this forum.
- LanDroid
-
- Comandante Literario Supreme
- Posts: 2800
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
- 21
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Has thanked: 195 times
- Been thanked: 1166 times
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
Regarding the original ethical situation, it is quite proper, as Movie Nerd states, to inquire "What Would Yahweh Do?" in order to find a proper resolution to that dilemma. yourkst provided what at first appears to be an incendiary answer, but is well supported by the Bible. I don't see what the fuss is about, multiple lines of ethical reasoning are feasible in this thread although some even more ripe for personal attack than others.ant wrote:You guys are a boring joke now. I ask a question that has nothing to do with god or an argument for the existence of god, or religious morality and all that's being done here is more whining about god.
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6499
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2719 times
- Been thanked: 2662 times
- Contact:
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
ant's comment here reads as just more typical duplicitous trolling, seeking a reaction by making baseless assertions. S/he knew full well, as has been abundantly pointed out already in this thread, that the thread title was purely about a critique of religious morality. So it appears ant is supremely thick, making a comment and then wildly attacking and ignoring simple discussion of it. The disingenuity of the antianism that this is supposedly "nothing to do with god or ... religious morality" is impressively brazen. The entire point of the opening post was that secular morality is unable to resolve dilemmas.LanDroid wrote:Regarding the original ethical situation, it is quite proper, as Movie Nerd states, to inquire "What Would Yahweh Do?" in order to find a proper resolution to that dilemma. yourkst provided what at first appears to be an incendiary answer, but is well supported by the Bible. I don't see what the fuss is about, multiple lines of ethical reasoning are feasible in this thread although some even more ripe for personal attack than others.ant wrote:You guys are a boring joke now. I ask a question that has nothing to do with god or an argument for the existence of god, or religious morality and all that's being done here is more whining about god.
- lehelvandor
-
Freshman
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
- 9
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 104 times
- Contact:
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
True, and if one claims to have at least an equal if not superior take on the particular subject, then consistently reverting to infantile personal attacks undermine that position. Somehow this contradiction is lost on the particular person.
Separately, it really affects the forum - others 'out there' tend to do it in more civilised and better concealed ways if they set out to undermine the discussions. If that's not the aim, then it is even worse - then it's just a very weak irrational stance.
Separately, it really affects the forum - others 'out there' tend to do it in more civilised and better concealed ways if they set out to undermine the discussions. If that's not the aim, then it is even worse - then it's just a very weak irrational stance.
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6499
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2719 times
- Been thanked: 2662 times
- Contact:
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
The nature of ravenous trolling, such as the obtuse comments by ant here which appear deliberately inflammatory, is that no suitable response is possible that can avoid criticism. This thread directly quoted me, so I felt justified in clarifying my views. But as Movie Nerd has implied, to have one's sensible and courteous responses consistently twisted, ignored, denigrated or worse by an insulting troll is a novel and intriguing experience. If readers consider these debates, they will see that ant systematically evades sensible discussion of content.lehelvandor wrote:infantile personal attacks undermine that position
- lehelvandor
-
Freshman
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
- 9
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 104 times
- Contact:
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
No worries, it just took 9 days in 4 threads to perfectly demonstrate the latter. And since it was said that some "imagine" it, best was to let the person provide all the self-contradicting reactions - at least I tend to get such cases to that point, because then accusations of it being just others' subjective impression is also a self-contradiction. At least it is funny beyond a certain point.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
You define ethics, I present you with a situation to implement an ethical solution based on as you say reason plus evidence and all you can do is ask that my account here on booktalk be "considered" accuse me of being "funded" and cheer on those that have asked "What would God Do?"Robert Tulip wrote:ant's comment here reads as just more typical duplicitous trolling, seeking a reaction by making baseless assertions. S/he knew full well, as has been abundantly pointed out already in this thread, that the thread title was purely about a critique of religious morality. So it appears ant is supremely thick, making a comment and then wildly attacking and ignoring simple discussion of it. The disingenuity of the antianism that this is supposedly "nothing to do with god or ... religious morality" is impressively brazen. The entire point of the opening post was that secular morality is unable to resolve dilemmas.LanDroid wrote:Regarding the original ethical situation, it is quite proper, as Movie Nerd states, to inquire "What Would Yahweh Do?" in order to find a proper resolution to that dilemma. yourkst provided what at first appears to be an incendiary answer, but is well supported by the Bible. I don't see what the fuss is about, multiple lines of ethical reasoning are feasible in this thread although some even more ripe for personal attack than others.ant wrote:You guys are a boring joke now. I ask a question that has nothing to do with god or an argument for the existence of god, or religious morality and all that's being done here is more whining about god.
Boy, you sure are a slippery one, Robert!!
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
So we started from ethics equals reason plus evidence and leaped directly to "what would god do?"
Thats interesting.
Wizard hit it on the nail.
Most always you fall back on a god argument in response.
Thats interesting.
Wizard hit it on the nail.
Most always you fall back on a god argument in response.
- lehelvandor
-
Freshman
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
- 9
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 104 times
- Contact:
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
Apart from the opening, this hardly "jumped directly" to "what would God do".Robert wrote: ant, you (or your funder) have constructed a hypothetical moral dilemma that is carefully calculated to maximise the difficulty of weighing the lesser of two evils, torture and innocent death.Such circumstances cannot ever be resolved satisfactorily since something bad will happen whatever you do.
But the application of reason and evidence is the best ethical method we have.
Reason has to weigh the evidence about how setting a precedent on the use of torture could lead to a slippery slope.
Evidence based debate on exceptions to absolute principles is at the heart of moral logic.
The central point is in the weighing of bad and another bad, take the lesser evil - that is, if we take the thought experiment as is (which, as method, was stated in another thread as manipulative and hence to be ignored... just to mention this tiny detail that goes to consistency).
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: "Ethics equals reason plus evidence. "
Right.
Unfortunate for Robert, the best he can do here is implicitly state that god would do no better and continue to act as if his poetic diatribes about what ethics means is just that - meaningless until its applicability is somehow demonstrated. Even in a thought experiment.
and its pathetic how you are attempting to justify the foolishness of referencing what is otherwise argued as a myth.
nice try and good distraction for your team
Unfortunate for Robert, the best he can do here is implicitly state that god would do no better and continue to act as if his poetic diatribes about what ethics means is just that - meaningless until its applicability is somehow demonstrated. Even in a thought experiment.
and its pathetic how you are attempting to justify the foolishness of referencing what is otherwise argued as a myth.
nice try and good distraction for your team