LawTalkers - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

Originally posted by Spanky
At some point in moral reasoning (if moral reasoning does not come down to self purposes) you have to make irrational assumptions.

You can either say that you want to survive and thrive, and therefore everything you do is in line with that purpose is moral.

Or you can try and rationalize morality, but in any such rationalization you have to just assume some things are wrong with out being able to rationalize them.

For example.

The killing of innocent people is wrong.

There is no way to rationally defend that. But we all assume it is a rule.

If you try and rationalize it by saying we set up that rule so we won't get killed. Then you are really saying it is in my interest of self presevation not to kill innocent people because if I want to live in a society where people are not killed then I can't kill innocent people. However, logically, if you can kill an innocent person with out having it effect how society operates, then there is no reason not to do it. Especially if it benefits you.

Therefore there is no rational way to defend "the killing of innocent people is wrong".

Your assertions are self-contradictory. It is absurd to assert that I and I alone am immune from a social compact. Your entire construct is false.

Spanky

12-27-2005 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Your assertions are self-contradictory. It is absurd to assert that I and I alone am immune from a social compact. Your entire construct is false.

My assumptions on not self contradictory. You have made the assumption that someone cannot disregard the social contract. Why have you made that assumption? Why can't I live in a society where everyone observes the social contract, and I can pretend to observe, but when other people have no way of knowing, I disregard it. Why can't I do that.

People in our society do that all the time. Where is this force coming from that forces people to observe the social contract all the time?

Wouldn't it be the most beneficial for the rational individual to live in a society where there exists a social contract so you can reap the benefits of such a contract, but then disregard the contract for your own purposes if you can get away with it?

Why can't a rational person do such a thing?

Spanky

12-27-2005 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Your assertions are self-contradictory. It is absurd to assert that I and I alone am immune from a social compact. Your entire construct is false.

Why don't you answer the question:

How do you rationalize the statement:

"The killing of innocent people is wrong".

Unless you can give a rational basis for that statement, then you can't assert that morality can be based on reason.

Gattigap

12-27-2005 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Why don't you answer the question:

How do you rationalize the statement:

"The killing of innocent people is wrong".

Unless you can give a rational basis for that statement, then you can't assert that morality can be based on reason.

Did we need one more UMC vs. Social Compact throw-down before year-end in order to meet our quota or something?

Spanky

12-27-2005 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Did we need one more UMC vs. Social Compact throw-down before year-end in order to meet our quota or something?

It is almost the New Year. Time is running out.

Hank Chinaski

12-27-2005 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Did we need one more UMC vs. Social Compact throw-down before year-end in order to meet our quota or something?

What's worst is people coming here and fucking the board up and then arguing about "how we know what is right." We know what was wrong.

Spanky

12-27-2005 06:04 PM

I need this for my sanity

My two year old niece is here and the neighborhood kids. Its like romper room. If I don't post to this board I think I will lose my mind listening to those Australian freaks (willys, willers or something).

Gattigap

12-27-2005 07:21 PM

I need this for my sanity

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
My two year old niece is here and the neighborhood kids. Its like romper room. If I don't post to this board I think I will lose my mind listening to those Australian freaks (willys, willers or something).

Wiggles. Trust me, you're better off here.

Tyrone Slothrop

12-27-2005 08:08 PM

Morality cannot exist without a higher power

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Translation: I will often delete conservative's posts, but never would delete a liberal's post.

If you're reading this, Hank's wrong.

Tyrone Slothrop

12-27-2005 08:10 PM

Morality cannot exist without a higher power

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What difference does a specific circumstance make? I just gave you a specific circumstance and showed that with out a deeper moral principle, the rational thing to do is the immoral thing. From a rational perspective, the rational action is not what most people would consider the moral action.

Am I wrong?

If I encounter a stranger with lots of money, and I know I can take his money, kill him, hide the body, and I am sure no one will ever know, why shouldn't I do that. What if I have an ear infection, and I don't have the money to have it treated? Shouldn't I kill the guy?

What rational reason is there for me not to kill him?

I asked why you were asking that question. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I think killing strangers is OK or something.

Tyrone Slothrop

12-27-2005 08:14 PM

I need this for my sanity

Quote:

Quit whinging.

Spanky

12-27-2005 08:47 PM

Morality cannot exist without a higher power

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I asked why you were asking that question. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I think killing strangers is OK or something.

If people don't believe in a UMC then I wonder how they can argue morality. If you don't believe in a UMC then your morality is really based on self interest.

I find that it is the people that make the most vociferous arguments that the current administrations policies are immoral (tax cuts favoring the rich) are usually people that are moral relativists. Which really means they have no morality save their own self interest.

If you morality is purely based on your own self interest, and you are the the top tax bracket, why complain about the Bush tax cuts?

Spanky

12-27-2005 08:48 PM

I need this for my sanity

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Quit whinging.

Its what I do best, so I stick with it.

taxwonk

12-27-2005 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
My assumptions on not self contradictory. You have made the assumption that someone cannot disregard the social contract. Why have you made that assumption? Why can't I live in a society where everyone observes the social contract, and I can pretend to observe, but when other people have no way of knowing, I disregard it. Why can't I do that.

People in our society do that all the time. Where is this force coming from that forces people to observe the social contract all the time?

Wouldn't it be the most beneficial for the rational individual to live in a society where there exists a social contract so you can reap the benefits of such a contract, but then disregard the contract for your own purposes if you can get away with it?

Why can't a rational person do such a thing?

Because a rational person will recognize that there is no way they and they alone will be able to ignore the social contract while all others will observe it.

A person who actually holds such a belief is not called rational. He or she is called a fucking moron.

taxwonk

12-27-2005 08:49 PM

Quote:

I have never claimed that morality is based on reason.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:34 PM.

Page 158 of 334

158