Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
OP - September 04, 2011, 05:55 PM

You're a strange character, Rationalizer. The way I understand you, you reject the notion of objective morality (and therefore any real morality given what ethics must necessarily become sans any such foundation) and yet you attack religion, very often, on an ethical level. I'd be quite interested in understanding exactly how you think morality works.
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #1 - September 04, 2011, 06:03 PM

Zebedee, this is a one-on-one forum, you can't post in this thread

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #2 - September 04, 2011, 06:39 PM

Right, like you've never posted in a one-on-one before.

Anyhow, mods, please delete ma posts. Ta.
- truth_seeker
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #3 - September 05, 2011, 10:15 AM

Lol, I knew you were the Dajjal, Ed.

But I never knew you were the Antichrist too
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #4 - September 08, 2011, 03:37 PM

Zebedee, the reason I posted in a one-on-one before was because the discussion started in a public forum where numerous other people were permitted to post and was then moved to the one-on-one *only* for the purpose of explicitly censoring me.

Quote from: Zebedee on September 04, 2011, 05:55 PM
The way I understand you, you reject the notion of objective morality

I reject the notion of absolute morality, that does not mean that a moral decision cannot be reached objectively.

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #5 - September 08, 2011, 11:24 PM

Quote
Zebedee, the reason I posted in a one-on-one before was because the discussion started in a public forum where numerous other people were permitted to post and was then moved to the one-on-one *only* for the purpose of explicitly censoring me.

Fair enough.

Quote
I reject the notion of absolute morality, that does not mean that a moral decision cannot be reached objectively.

So what then is the objective basis for determining what is right, wrong, good and bad, according to you?
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #6 - September 20, 2011, 10:02 AM

Quote from: Zebedee on September 08, 2011, 11:24 PM
So what then is the objective basis for determining what is right, wrong, good and bad, according to you?

Sorry, I didn't have notifications enabled so I missed your response.

First let's make some definitions clear so that we are not discussing different concepts. Let me know if you have any objections.

First, two definitions not including the word "morality."
Subjective - Something within one's self that cannot be externally verified or corroborated.
Objective - Something outside of one's self that is possible to be externally verified or can be corroborated by others.

Then finally:
Absolute morality - The god version of morality, which is moral regardless of our feelings, intuition, evidence to the contrary, etc.

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #7 - September 20, 2011, 11:32 PM

No, I don't really have any objections to those definitions.
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #8 - September 21, 2011, 09:28 AM

So, which do you want me to explain my position of first - objective morality or absolute morality?

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #9 - September 21, 2011, 10:01 AM

Oh, I get your position on absolute morality, mine isn't that different. I'd certainly like to know how you think people derive objective morality though.
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #10 - September 21, 2011, 10:19 AM

Humans are a social species, we owe our success to that fact. Therefore socially beneficial acts are seen as moral and socially detrimental acts are seen as immoral. Effectively moral/immoral means beneficial/detrimental.

There is a degree of "self" in our evolutionary baggage where sometimes we might place our self interests above those of others. For example if there were two locked rooms with children in and I could only unlock one door to save the children inside then I would unlock the door to the room with my own children inside it. So what we perceive as moral/immoral is slightly muddied by a degree of self interest. It is this self interest which makes us see that it is not right to kill 1 healthy person in order to transplant their organs and save the lives of 5.

To avoid complications I shall use very extreme cases (at least in this first post.)

If in the past some human was born with their brain wired in such a way that made them want to stab all young children to death for mere entertainment then that clearly would not have been conducive to them producing offspring with the same trait which would survive long enough to pass it on. On the other hand people who had their brains physically wired to react to threats by defending their children would be more successful.

The fact that nearly all parents would risk their own welfare in order to save the life of their child means that although this is a subjective urge it is an objective fact. I would therefore say it is objectively moral (beneficial) to protect your children from harm, and objectively immoral (detrimental) to stab them to death.

This is objective because I have used criteria which can be corroborated by others and which is immutable (we are *already* this way, our history cannot change.)

Therefore I conclude that stabbing children to death for entertainment is objectively immoral.

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #11 - September 23, 2011, 09:38 PM

I see.

So then, does this mean that you've changed you're views on morality?

I seem to recall in this thread that you seem opposed to the existence of objective morality:

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=14393.0

Or did you use 'objective morality' in this thread to mean 'absolute morality'?

Sorry for the belated response by the way.
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #12 - September 24, 2011, 10:01 AM

It's okay.

I think it is fair to say that I have somewhat revised my opinions, yes. I now categorise subjective/objective/absolute. That has made it much more easy for me to understand what was going on in my mind There is no "absolute" morality, but we can use objective means in order to decide which to decide that certain things we find to be moral.

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #13 - September 24, 2011, 10:18 AM

(Edited out, posted on wrong thread like a knob)

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #14 - September 24, 2011, 07:07 PM

Quote from: TheRationalizer on September 24, 2011, 10:01 AM
I think it is fair to say that I have somewhat revised my opinions, yes. I now categorise subjective/objective/absolute. That has made it much more easy for me to understand what was going on in my mind There is no "absolute" morality, but we can use objective means in order to decide which to decide that certain things we find to be moral.

Yes, that's pretty much the same perspective I take on the question.

I think morality functions a lot like a form of the scientific method, and you use it to find what works, and what doesn't, the deciding factors in which process are certain, simple, fundamental principles. I tried to explain my position to a 'nihilistic' Christian a while back on here, and I basically hold to the same views as then, but no doubt these days I'd reconsider some things, word other things differently, etc.

Not that I expect you to spend the time of day reading my philosophical ramblings from ages ago, but here's the thread anyway:

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=10359.msg273914#msg273914
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: Re: TheRationalizer Vs Sam Shamoun
Reply #15 - September 24, 2011, 07:57 PM

I'd have probably agreed with you earlier, I just needed to come up with the definitions that I outlined at the start before that was possible

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
1« Previous thread | Next thread »