Who are you to judge?

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Who are you to judge?
OP - April 03, 2012, 07:34 PM

Some thoughts on a consequence of the position of moral relativism;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFTuY0UPXM

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- Stardust
- Founder of Neo-Hippiism
- Ex-Muslim
- Beneath The Veil
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #1 - April 03, 2012, 09:27 PM

It's because they want to tip toe around others and not be blamed for anything. If they start saying anything, having an opinion it means they can be wrong according to some, so they take the safer option to say we can't judge them because you have a different ruler for them to measure against. That way nobody can in anyway oppose them since they're not even 'in the game'. Neutrality

But could also to do with ignorance too tbh, if you're not knowledgeable about something enough, you can't make a fair comment, but of course given a statement like 'acid being thrown on women's face because they refused marriage' is not hard to know what's the right stance to take.

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
- billy
- Pub Regular
- Tripitaka ~ Closet Juice
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #2 - April 03, 2012, 09:37 PM

Its a complex phenomenon. But its partly because some things are too painful to introspect about. Its a form of knee jerk defensiveness by some. And a paralysis from analysing when the analysis takes you to conclusions that you don't want to follow.

"we can smell traitors and country haters"

Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
God is Love.
Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
- Lynna
- Pub Regular
- Seek peace. Endure. Find joy.
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #3 - April 03, 2012, 11:45 PM

An individual can't possibly be involved in every cause in every country.

We however can and should be informed and make judgments about the moral and ethical correctness of activities we tolerant for ourselves and others in our community and society in general. However this does not by definition mean imposing our own standard on everyone.

Some every good examples of never tolerable things have already been mentioned but generally stated would be, ownership of another for the purpose of sex trade and disfiguring someone as punishment for a supposed wrong. These type things as can shake the foundation of human dignity and so profoundly effect even to successive generations should never be toleranted anywhere.

There are other things that we may personally find wrong or offensive that may range from a variety of lifestyle, sexual, political, or religious choices that we do not have the right to condemn others for. Which would equally go to say we have no right to force anyone to see things as we do. I suppose the keywords in this part of my thought are condemning and forcing. The defending of anothers right to choose differently is a fundamental part of our own freedom to make our choice.

In an ideal world we would stand a chance of making all things good.
As it is we can just keep trying.

If at first you succeed...try something harder.

Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
- nesrin
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #4 - April 04, 2012, 12:46 AM

... and i'm glad there's people like you strangestdude...
great job .. like always...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV9vdUjuWxc
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #5 - April 04, 2012, 11:24 AM

Quote from: Stardust on April 03, 2012, 09:27 PM
It's because they want to tip toe around others and not be blamed for anything.

I agree that might be a reason - intellectual cowardice.

Quote
But could also to do with ignorance too tbh, if you're not knowledgeable about something enough, you can't make a fair comment, but of course given a statement like 'acid being thrown on women's face because they refused marriage' is not hard to know what's the right stance to take.

I agree that may be a reason, I try not to rush to make a judgement without knowing background info. But I was referring to people who take this position as a principle - and I have no idea why someone would value cultural sovereignty higher than human well-being.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #6 - April 04, 2012, 11:30 AM

Quote from: billy on April 03, 2012, 09:37 PM
Its a complex phenomenon. But its partly because some things are too painful to introspect about. Its a form of knee jerk defensiveness by some. And a paralysis from analysing when the analysis takes you to conclusions that you don't want to follow.

Thanks for you insight Billy. I remember that at times I've stopped myself from making judgements about others behaviour because I knew I would be motivated to do something that might make me feel uncomfortable.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #7 - April 04, 2012, 12:09 PM

Quote from: Lynna on April 03, 2012, 11:45 PM
An individual can't possibly be involved in every cause in every country.

Where did I give the impression that I believed an individual could?

Quote
We however can and should be informed and make judgments about the moral and ethical correctness of activities we tolerant for ourselves and others in our community and society in general. However this does not by definition mean imposing our own standard on everyone.

There is a difference between imposition and persuasion. Some ethical positions and practices that I believe are wrong in other cultures, I beleive should be dealt with by persuasion - and others by state imposition. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I beleive all ethical judgments should be imposed (via legislation), that's not the case.

I think most people operate with a hierarchy of values, and even if we determine a behaviour as immoral it may be of greater detriment to outlaw it, because it may infringe of the higher value of self-determination ie. the war on drugs.

However I think that every state on the planet should impose laws to prevent unwilful physical harm, slavery, and child abuse.

Quote
Which would equally go to say we have no right to force anyone to see things as we do.

I suppose the keywords in this part of my thought are condemning and forcing. The defending of anothers right to choose differently is a fundamental part of our own freedom to make our choice.

Because I beleive in making ethical judgments doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that what's morally wrong should be outlawed.

Like I previously said we can do cost-benefit analysis and beleive that although a behaviour is morally wrong, it would be a greater evil to curtail self-determination.

I get the impresion that you beleive I'm advocating moralizing? If that is the case, then I'm definitely not.

However I agree with Sam Harris' postion on morality. If a person's foundation of morality is sentient well-being, and if you agree with the underlying assumption of the scientific method, that the universe is - in principle - predictable, then there are objectively - in principle - right and wrong ways to faciliate well-being.

This doesn't of course mean that we have to impose ethical frameworks on others, but it means that we can attempt via; experiments, research, thought experiments, critical thinking, etc, to determine what is right, wrong or neutral ethically. And we can analyze ethical frameworks and cultural practices based on this foundation.

This might be of interest;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #8 - April 04, 2012, 12:10 PM

Quote from: nessrriinn on April 04, 2012, 12:46 AM
... and i'm glad there's people like you strangestdude...
great job .. like always...

Thanks Ness. That means alot to me coming from you. I love your vids.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #9 - April 04, 2012, 06:42 PM

Quote from: strangestdude on April 04, 2012, 12:09 PM

This might be of interest;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Well, long time ago, when this video may have been responsible for a viral thread on the forums, Bison described Harris's moral philosophy best:

Quote from: Mount A Bison on January 19, 2011, 11:48 PM

To be clear, I don't wanna be drawn into this debate for any conversation revolving around Sam Harris makes one’s spirit take flight. Better a man studies the aristocracy of the Country of the Mind. Sam’s work is a pedagogy of imbecility, the man a vulgarian of the very first rank. Just wanna rescue my buddy Jeremy from the Burkean alignment. The memory of that heroic Victorian who did so much for the cause of man and beast (he was pro-animal rights) deserves much better. I implore all God’s chilllun to refrain from drawing his good name into this fracas except to hymn his legacy. Some of us are utilitarian fanatics. The instant his name crops up, we drop everything, spit on our hands and begin slitting throats. Blame Peter Singer. He passed the contagion on to me. Stay far away likewise from the names of Mill, Hume and Russell. Ahh, the torchbearers of the Enlightenment, what they lacked in good plumbing is for more than compensated by IQs north of God's.

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #10 - April 04, 2012, 08:29 PM

So I take it you don't agree with it, cool.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #11 - April 05, 2012, 12:53 AM

LOL@agree
Not only I do not agree with it, but I despise Harris for writing the ridiculous book. (And yes, part of it may be envy)

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- Lynna
- Pub Regular
- Seek peace. Endure. Find joy.
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #12 - April 05, 2012, 02:06 PM

Quote from: strangestdude on April 04, 2012, 12:09 PM
Where did I give the impression that I believed an individual could?

There is a difference between imposition and persuasion. Some ethical positions and practices that I believe are wrong in other cultures, I beleive should be dealt with by persuasion - and others by state imposition. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I beleive all ethical judgments should be imposed (via legislation), that's not the case.

I think most people operate with a hierarchy of values, and even if we determine a behaviour as immoral it may be of greater detriment to outlaw it, because it may infringe of the higher value of self-determination ie. the war on drugs.

However I think that every state on the planet should impose laws to prevent unwilful physical harm, slavery, and child abuse.

Because I beleive in making ethical judgments doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that what's morally wrong should be outlawed.

Like I previously said we can do cost-benefit analysis and beleive that although a behaviour is morally wrong, it would be a greater evil to curtail self-determination.

I get the impresion that you beleive I'm advocating moralizing? If that is the case, then I'm definitely not.

However I agree with Sam Harris' postion on morality. If a person's foundation of morality is sentient well-being, and if you agree with the underlying assumption of the scientific method, that the universe is - in principle - predictable, then there are objectively - in principle - right and wrong ways to faciliate well-being.

This doesn't of course mean that we have to impose ethical frameworks on others, but it means that we can attempt via; experiments, research, thought experiments, critical thinking, etc, to determine what is right, wrong or neutral ethically. And we can analyze ethical frameworks and cultural practices based on this foundation.

This might be of interest;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Perhaps the only reason I said an individual can't be involved in all things in all countries was because I was limiting what I was willing to discuss. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the statement about people who withdrew from getting involved. With issues crossed international boarders no matter how heinous.

Did I ever mention legislation? Yes laws are necessary to protect the majority form the minority that has no moral sense. But laws can't make people act "right" at the level that matters. For example laws can not stop child abuse. Laws can define what it is and what will happen to those involved but it won't stop it. What stops child abuse is bringing the people to a level of understanding as to what abuse is and why it's damaging. Which brings me to some information your SamHarris video. He brings up "spare the rod spoil the child". Then however he only brings up an example of it's misapplication. To do something like that is normally referred to as emotional sensationalism not to being informative. That he does some emotional sensationalism doesn't discredit all his information by any means. Just I'm not mega impressed.

There are some other things as well but I have to get back to it later.

If at first you succeed...try something harder.

Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
- Lynna
- Pub Regular
- Seek peace. Endure. Find joy.
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #13 - April 13, 2012, 02:55 PM

Quote from: strangestdude on April 04, 2012, 12:09 PM

There is a difference between imposition and persuasion. Some ethical positions and practices that I believe are wrong in other cultures, I beleive should be dealt with by persuasion - and others by state imposition. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I beleive all ethical judgments should be imposed (via legislation), that's not the case.

I think most people operate with a hierarchy of values, and even if we determine a behaviour as immoral it may be of greater detriment to outlaw it, because it may infringe of the higher value of self-determination ie. the war on drugs.

However I think that every state on the planet should impose laws to prevent unwilful physical harm, slavery, and child abuse.

Because I beleive in making ethical judgments doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that what's morally wrong should be outlawed.

Like I previously said we can do cost-benefit analysis and beleive that although a behaviour is morally wrong, it would be a greater evil to curtail self-determination.

I get the impresion that you beleive I'm advocating moralizing? If that is the case, then I'm definitely not.

However I agree with Sam Harris' postion on morality. If a person's foundation of morality is sentient well-being, and if you agree with the underlying assumption of the scientific method, that the universe is - in principle - predictable, then there are objectively - in principle - right and wrong ways to faciliate well-being.

This doesn't of course mean that we have to impose ethical frameworks on others, but it means that we can attempt via; experiments, research, thought experiments, critical thinking, etc, to determine what is right, wrong or neutral ethically. And we can analyze ethical frameworks and cultural practices based on this foundation.

This might be of interest;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

You're right there is a very big difference between imposition and persuasion. There are times however when neither work well to get some humans to conform to a suitable social norm. But then we would be back to what is a "suitable social norm". We, you and I, seem to agree that this include restrictions on slavery and child abuse but but possibly disagree on drug trafficking. How than and on what standard do we get the rest of the world to agree?

In your SamHarris video he talks about religious people who live for some future reward he indicated these were heaven or hell. Well perhaps this is the case with some or maybe even most religious people. The thing is it shouldn't be the case for Bible believers. They should be as interested as living for the here and now as for the future because what a person is doing with their daily live matters. Anyhow that is kind side point to what I was actually thinking.

You talked about attempting through experimentation and research and critical thinking to determine what is right, wrong or neutral ethically. How long do you think this will take humanity to do?

There are all kinds of ideas for people to have and things for us to do. There are also logical consequence for any action or lack of action that we decide on.

Also while I'm thinking about it there is difference ethical and moral isn't there?. So are we talking about both here just kind of together?

If at first you succeed...try something harder.

Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #14 - April 13, 2012, 06:28 PM

Quote from: Lynna on April 05, 2012, 02:06 PM
Did I ever mention legislation?

You mentioned force - I took it in a literal sense (ie. laws, mind control and violence) rather than in the metaphorical sense that you seem to be suggesting was what you meant.

Quote
Yes laws are necessary to protect the majority form the minority that has no moral sense. But laws can't make people act "right" at the level that matters. For example laws can not stop child abuse. Laws can define what it is and what will happen to those involved but it won't stop it.

It can deter it. And instituitions like social services can (in theory) monitor whether a child legal welfare is being infringed upon.

Quote
What stops child abuse is bringing the people to a level of understanding as to what abuse is and why it's damaging.

I disagree that an ethical framework/knowledge alone will prevent it, I think what motivates alot of asshole's behaviour is emotional trauma and unhappiness. Most people I know who are habitually cruel are either indifferent others suffering, or gain a sense of significan from inflicting suffering on others.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #15 - April 13, 2012, 06:58 PM

Quote from: Lynna on April 13, 2012, 02:55 PM
You're right there is a very big difference between imposition and persuasion. There are times however when neither work well to get some humans to conform to a suitable social norm.

I agree, there is no utopian system.

Quote
But then we would be back to what is a "suitable social norm". We, you and I, seem to agree that this include restrictions on slavery and child abuse but but possibly disagree on drug trafficking. How than and on what standard do we get the rest of the world to agree?

The standard that Sam and I believe is sentient well-being. If we agree on that, and if we agree on the assumption that the universe is predictable - in principle - then there is a right and wrong way to facilitate sentient well-being.

Based on that foundation we can construct a provisional ethical framework. However because human being are fallible, we will disagree. Via discourse, experimentation, critical thinking, though experiements, etc humanity can hope to move towards models that are conducive towards sentient well-being.

Quote
In your SamHarris video he talks about religious people who live for some future reward he indicated these were heaven or hell. Well perhaps this is the case with some or maybe even most religious people. The thing is it shouldn't be the case for Bible believers. They should be as interested as living for the here and now as for the future because what a person is doing with their daily live matters.

What would you say is the foundation of your morality?

Quote
You talked about attempting through experimentation and research and critical thinking to determine what is right, wrong or neutral ethically. How long do you think this will take humanity to do?

If humanity takes Sam's proposal seriously then I don't know how long it would take formal science of morality to create a provisional ethical framework.

But it's worth pointing out that the majority individuals who have a secular based wordview already construct provisional ethical framework's based on what I previously mentioned.

Quote
Also while I'm thinking about it there is difference ethical and moral isn't there?. So are we talking about both here just kind of together?

Not to me, I use the terms synonymously.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- Lynna
- Pub Regular
- Seek peace. Endure. Find joy.
- offline
Re: Who are you to judge?
Reply #16 - April 13, 2012, 08:17 PM

Okay knowledge as in knowing facts will not stop cruelty and abuse. I suppose I was using that word wrong or unclearly. You're right people can have facts about how to treat others more appropriately but because of abusive situations they don't have the skills to carry out what they know they need to do. I frequently run in to this situation when dealing with offenders in the prison. These however are not lost cause situations. Some of these men find cause and way to over come their past and make better choices. So that would be knowledge of a "better" method, reason to pursue it, a model to of how it's done to examine is useful.

Humm...I see how you could think I was talking about legislation when I used the word forced. I'm seldom talking about legislation or governmental type force. Government should, although it won't, stay out of personal matters. Hmmm... Governments are mea.t to keep order and safety not to order individual choices. When I was talking about forcing I more had in mind socially forcing people to make certain choices. Socially we should encourage parents to take good care of their children. We should support programs and systems that are good for children. This my vary, even greatly from community to community. But there are things we know do not work. Starving children, having them in the sex trade, using them as soilder, these such thing should be governed by laws to prevent them from occurring. You mentioned that Social Services could monitor child abuse. I suppose you mean after the fact. This is an idea that has it's place and at times works. I would think really solving the problem starts much sooner.

You ask what is the foundation of my morality. You already know I believe in God and the Bible is there some additional question about what that might mean? There is however no fear of everlasting punishment that promotes me to do anything.

Interesting a provisional ethical framework. I think mankind has been working on one of those for a long time. Has done it yet but if you have more information on how it's going I am marginally interested. You know I believe that was the original sin that humans wanted to govern themselves

If at first you succeed...try something harder.

Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »