Right or wrong religion?

[sayak83]

Of course it's arbitary, since the killing of any human can be avoided. That's not even talking about non-human life. So your moral system is just as subjective as the rest.

How. If A is about to kill B, if B does not act in self-defense then B dies. So killing is not getting avoided.
Yes, taking non-human life of higher animals capable of sentience is immoral. So an ethical diet would eschew animal flesh.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Of course it's arbitary, since the killing of any human can be avoided. That's not even talking about non-human life. So your moral system is just as subjective as the rest.

If a human being get killed by a car, the person who drive the car did not intend to kill any person while driving, then the drive has not done any immoral action,
But if the driver did on purpose drive to fast and did not try to void hitting someone ad then did hit a person in the street, this would be morally bad action.

 

[Ancient Soul]

If killing in self defense was unavoidable then its not immoral.See the definition:- immoral actions are those that cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings...and whether the action causing the suffering was avoidable or not can be determined with sufficient knowledge of the conditions during which the action was made.

There is nothing arbitrary here. If the action could not have been avoided, then the action is not immoral.

For what it's worth, I think you've made your belief on the matter quite clear.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For what it's worth, I think you've made your belief on the matter quite clear.

The clarity of their belief isn't the issue.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If a human being get killed by a car, the person who drive the car did not intend to kill any person while driving, then the drive has not done any immoral action,
But if the driver did on purpose drive to fast and did not try to void hitting someone ad then did hit a person in the street, this would be morally bad action.

He said "unnecessary" not "unintentional". He would have to define what he means by "unnecessary". Either way, the results are the same. Just don't drive a car at all and you won't hit anyone.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Oh, so you mean like thoughts. Given they can't be shown to exist outside the minds of humans.

At least I've never seen one on display anywhere, or even floating out of people's heads like cartoon bubbles.

Qualia - Wikipedia

Qualia are subjective experiences by default.

Nope, that has nothing to do with what I stated.

I re-posted it topmost, so you won't get so confused again.

 

[Ancient Soul]

The clarity of their belief isn't the issue.

Then WHY are you so obsessed with making him CLARIFY his beliefs?

 

[Ancient Soul]

He said "unnecessary" not "unintentional". He would have to define what he means by "unnecessary". Either way, the results are the same. Just don't drive a car at all and you won't hit anyone.

Ah, going for the changing reality rules to "win" a debate.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How. If A is about to kill B, if B does not act in self-defense then B dies. So killing is not getting avoided.
Yes, taking non-human life of higher animals capable of sentience is immoral. So an ethical diet would eschew animal flesh.

I had a big, fat steak for dinner. I really enjoyed it. So I'm immoral in your eyes, but you have no way to show that outside of your opinions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

He said "unnecessary" not "unintentional". He would have to define what he means by "unnecessary". Either way, the results are the same. Just don't drive a car at all and you won't hit anyone.

driving the car to fast then losing control and killing someone is unnecessery kiling.

driving within the rules and maybe very crarfully then killing someone who coming in to the road with out warning, that is unintentional

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

driving the car to fast then losing control and killing someone is unnecessery kiling.

driving within the rules and maybe very crarfully then killing someone who coming in to the road with out warning, that is unintentional

Was the unintentional killing in the second scenario necessary?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah, going for the changing reality rules to "win" a debate.

I have no idea what you're talking about. No one is going to "win" this debate since neither is going to change their mind or likely to admit they're wrong. I'm a moral nihilist and it would be pretty hard to convince me otherwise, since I find the other positions so weak. It's just a discussion to make myself think, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Was the unintentional killing in the second scenario necessary?

seen from a buddhist POW the person who did get killed in second scenario can have had to much karmato live on, and the car was used as a tool to end his life. then this does not give the driver fully blame for the killing. But you can say, if the driver had not first begun is drive, would the killed man stil be killed? and from lawof karma, yes the man would have died no matter what, but in an other scenarion

 

[Ancient Soul]

I have no idea what you're talking about. No one is going to "win" this debate since neither is going to change their mind or likely to admit they're wrong. I'm a moral nihilist and it would be pretty hard to convince me otherwise, since I find the other positions so weak. It's just a discussion to make myself think, as far as I'm concerned.

So since you are against having any morals, it's no wonder you would try changing the rules to make yourself feel that you've "won" the debate somehow.

And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone try claiming that you weren't a "moral nihilist" to get you so riled up. So what is your goal here, to bring everyone down to your level of negativity and cynicism?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So since you are against having any morals, it's no wonder you would try changing the rules to make yourself feel that you've "won" the debate somehow.

And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone try claiming that you weren't a "moral nihilist" to get you so riled up. So what is your goal here, to bring everyone down to your level of negativity and cynicism?

Wtf are you talking about? Nothing I said had anything to with negativity and cynicism, or being "against morals". It only has to do with what can be shown to be objective fact or empirical. Someone made an objective truth claim and I disagreed. I just said it's not about "winning" any debate.

You need to stop trolling.

 

[sayak83]

I had a big, fat steak for dinner. I really enjoyed it. So I'm immoral in your eyes, but you have no way to show that outside of your opinions.

Yes, eating steak is immoral. So is eating chicken, which I do. None of us, nor the human civilization in its current state, is morally perfect. But that's why there is scope for moral progress, both individually and collectively.

 

[Shantanu]

Yes, eating steak is immoral. So is eating chicken, which I do. None of us, nor the human civilization in its current state, is morally perfect. But that's why there is scope for moral progress, both individually and collectively.

I was born a Hindu and am married to a Hindu with staunch beliefs on eating beef so out of accommodating that I refrain from eating beef but if Hinduism says that eating steak is morally wrong I do not want to be a Hindu.

 

[LuisDantas]

Faith in what?
Are you comparing faith in God to belief in God?
Or are you talking about faith in general?

I am actually discarding God as a focus.

Faith is definitely better, more constructive than belief. But Faith has several diverging definitions as well.

Faith in God is sometimes a good thing... but not very often.

 

[LuisDantas]

About the quality of morality, my take is that morality is indeed objective, or at least "non-subjective".

It is often mistaken for a subjective discipline because its expression must by necessity be shaped by many circunstances, of which quite a few involve the ability of actual sentient beings to perceive reality and to engage in abstract thinking.

All that means is that morality is informed by objective criteria while its expression is informed by subjective circunstances.

Morality is objective, but moral action is subjective. The way I see it, it is an exquisitely intellectual art.

 

[Shantanu]

About the quality of morality, my take is that morality is indeed objective, or at least "non-subjective".

It is often mistaken for a subjective discipline because its expression must by necessity be shaped by many circunstances, of which quite a few involve the ability of actual sentient beings to perceive reality and to engage in abstract thinking.

All that means is that morality is informed by objective criteria while its expression is informed by subjective circunstances.

Morality is objective, but moral action is subjective. The way I see it, it is an exquisitely intellectual art.

If morality is genetically-determined so that all humans posses the morality gene to the same level of gene expression, it is objective, right?