Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are smarter than this. And I think your post is missing some words. Or punctuation.

I think knowing that people get away with cheating on their taxes makes people who would normally be meticulous more likely to fudge things like "home office" and "business expenses." Slippery slope.

Of course, I intermittently get a lot of exposure to the whole "social norms" universe of stuff, and am no doubt influenced by that. I find it pretty compelling, though.

Why do you believe slavery is wrong. Why is it immoral?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes - that kind of religious philosophy.

I used to be an Atheist/Agnostic for years. The problem was that my instincts told me that female circumscission in North Africa is wrong. My instincts also told me that as long as there are starving people in the world something is not right and needs to be fixed. My instincts also told me that it is wrong to kill innocent people. My instincts also told me that these truths are universal. Killing is wrong in every society and all the time. In addition, I have no problem that tons of antelopes are being killed every year by Lions. My instincts tell me there is right and wrong and it aplies to everyone everywhere.

The problem is if my instincts are just there as a survival mechanism than how do you argue with someone and tell them slavery is wrong. But if it just an instinctual feeling that helps me survive how do I tell a Northern Sudanese what they are doing is wrong when the enslave a black Sudanese. Like Jefferson, I think certain morality is self evident, and the only way it can be self evident if is it comes from somewhere.

Where is the lapse in my logic?

Umm, your instincts could be wrong? Or your instincts could be different than other people's instincts?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes - that kind of religious philosophy.

I used to be an Atheist/Agnostic for years. The problem was that my instincts told me that female circumscission in North Africa is wrong. My instincts also told me that as long as there are starving people in the world something is not right and needs to be fixed. My instincts also told me that it is wrong to kill innocent people. My instincts also told me that these truths are universal. Killing is wrong in every society and all the time. In addition, I have no problem that tons of antelopes are being killed every year by Lions. My instincts tell me there is right and wrong and it aplies to everyone everywhere.

The problem is if my instincts are just there as a survival mechanism than how do you argue with someone and tell them slavery is wrong. But if it just an instinctual feeling that helps me survive how do I tell a Northern Sudanese what they are doing is wrong when the enslave a black Sudanese. Like Jefferson, I think certain morality is self evident, and the only way it can be self evident if is it comes from somewhere.

Where is the lapse in my logic?

Based on your upbringing and conditioning, female circumcision, starvation and slavery are pains you would not find at all tolerable personally. You project this intolerableness onto other people -- these three things are so foreign to your experience that you cannot see how they would be tolerable to anyone. Therefore, to you, these people are in intolerably bad conditions. We have evolved such that we have an innate desire that other people not be in intolerable conditions because it impairs their ability to thrive and, thus, threatens the survival of the species.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why do you believe slavery is wrong. Why is it immoral?

When did I say I think it is immoral or wrong? How about, I would find being enslaved abhorrent.

OTOH, it might be OK -- depends what the alternatives are, and what I'm used to.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Umm, your instincts could be wrong? Or your instincts could be different than other people's instincts?

But it seems to me the rest of the world has the same instincts. The world now universally seems to accept that Slavery is wrong. There is a Universal Human Rights statement put out by the UN, which most countrys agreed with. Regardless of culture or background. If morality were relative, and differed from culture to culture, a universal statement on human rights would be impossible. So would an international court of justice.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Based on your upbringing and conditioning, female circumcision, starvation and slavery are pains you would not find at all tolerable personally. You project this intolerableness onto other people -- these three things are so foreign to your experience that you cannot see how they would be tolerable to anyone. Therefore, to you, these people are in intolerably bad conditions. We have evolved such that we have an innate desire that other people not be in intolerable conditions because it impairs their ability to thrive and, thus, threatens the survival of the species.

It does not threaten the survival of the species, and in no way harms me. Yet I am willing to spend a lot of resources (time and money) on helping to eradicate it. Is there a Universal code I am trying to support or am I just acting irrationally?

BTW - the Superman label came from Nietzcha not me. Didn't you see a Fish Called Wanda?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
But it seems to me the rest of the world has the same instincts. The world now universally seems to accept that Slavery is wrong. There is a Universal Human Rights statement put out by the UN, which most countrys agreed with. Regardless of culture or background. If morality were relative, and differed from culture to culture, a universal statement on human rights would be impossible. So would an international court of justice.

I don't think morality is relative, but I think the basis on which you claim to know what is moral is extremely flawed.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
But it seems to me the rest of the world has the same instincts. The world now universally seems to accept that Slavery is wrong. There is a Universal Human Rights statement put out by the UN, which most countrys agreed with. Regardless of culture or background. If morality were relative, and differed from culture to culture, a universal statement on human rights would be impossible. So would an international court of justice.

neither the universal statement nor international court of justice have been accepted by everyone. so they aren't really universal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We know that morality and ethics predated the writing of the Old Testament. These were derived from religions that, if we accept Judeo-Christianity as true, are fake. This means that either the religions were made up by men or delivered here by aliens. Since morality must come from a higher power (per spanky), the religion must have been delivered by aliens.

George Lucas invented the aliens. Therefore, George Lucas is the source of all morality.

QED.

I invented this.

[Spanky]

This existence of this board seems to assume an international moral code. We argue whether or not the invasion of Iraq was good for the Iraqis but we all assume that the well being of the Iraqis should be taken into consideration. I know I do. But why should we care about how our foreign policy effects the Iraqis, unless there is a universal moral code that we all agree on that states that you shouldn't screw up other peoples lives without good reason?

Every argument on this board assumes that someone's line of reasoning follows the universal moral code and the other persons reasoning does not. If morality is relative there could be no argument because we would all just have decisions based on our morality and there would be no point to arguing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are smarter than this.

for her to say this implies she thinks she is smarter than you. One cannot judge the intelligence of anything except the lesser intelligent.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think morality is relative, but I think the basis on which you claim to know what is moral is extremely flawed.

So where does your universal morality come from? What other source is their?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
neither the universal statement nor international court of justice have been accepted by everyone. so they aren't really universal.

True but the fact that even a billion people could agree on some sort of code seem to disprove the moral relativity theory. If morality is just based on culture, how could such document even be contemplated?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
True but the fact that even a billion people could agree on some sort of code seem to disprove the moral relativity theory. If morality is just based on culture, how could such document even be contemplated?

A billion people didn't agree on it. I bet a bunch of them don't even know of the existence of these things. We as a country I believe don't feel we are bound by the international court. So your premise is wrong.

I think we are too far apart in worldview to discuss this rationally. And, I am leaving anyway.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Like Jefferson, I think certain morality is self evident, and the only way it can be self evident if is it comes from somewhere.

Where is the lapse in my logic?

Pi is always 3.1415926535897etc., and you don't need religion to tell you that. Reason doubtless leads people to agree on a great many truths.

And at the margins these principles are not as universal as you suggest. Killing is bad, but killing in self defense is not. Many people believe it's OK to execute people for crimes, even though it's not self defense. The Aztecs' religion had them believing that human sacrifice is OK, something most people now would probably dispute.