Jump to content

[Game] Last one to post wins!


Recommended Posts

29-Figure1-1.png

Is Mark's statement ("What Mr. Johnson did was morally permissible") correct? Why or why not? 

The world is far, the world is wide; the man needs someone by his side. 

Our Thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Breloomancer

    25078

  • Bear

    7519

  • Srn347

    4921

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't know. presumably, mr johnson whipped someone, but I don't know why he did that so I can't say if it was permissible. what I think is morally correct has very little to do with what the crew of those ships thinks

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm

Search Engine on Twitter: "Moral universalism https://t.co/aptAa1Folw  #Moraluniversalism… "


 

Mostly unrelated. I was thinking about my perspectives on things and how I've found many religious people, apologists specifically, not like just religious people living their daily lives, have really strange views on atheists. Really I think there's a tremendous amount of bias involved that they're generally catering toward people who are losing their faith, and so their arguments center around proving why it's all important. 

 

I have seen in several places, including just the other day, that a tactic is to present an athiest with whatever piece of scripture that says (in so many words) "ouuuuuuuuuuur God is an awesome Goooood, grrrrreater than any ooooother" and then, see the atheist squirm and stumble! This proves he doesn't have a good answer, he can't defend atheism! Checkmate! Muslim and Christian apologists I've seen this from. 

 

It was just interesting to me. Because I understand how that does feel like a win... you say something, your opponent has zero response, they can't argue against scripture! HAH! That's what THE BOOK says! But then I know completely what that feels like. There's no reason this magical book means anything. Arguing from the Bible with someone who doesn't think the Bible is anything special, you might as well be quoting the Iliad or Hammurabi's Code. Why aren't you worshiping Anthea???? 

 

My beliefs have changed a lot though. I still don't think everyone has to be Christian, really it seems completely unrealistic and I wouldn't really support any campaign to try to coerce people to leave their cultural religious practices in lieu of Christianity- especially knowing how often exploitive it can be (no contraceptives! abstinence only! never mind the AIDS epidemic!). BUT I do have a greater understanding of the importance of being a part of something bigger, something to foster moral and ethical development, to have traditions and culture and shit like that, to have greater meaning. There's a level of "to each his own" in it, or in the Mercedes's Lackey books it was phrased as "There is no One Way." But then when I think of the people I know who are "all gods are real tee hee" or "magic rocks tee hee I'm a crystal worshipping satanist for the irony" I think about how I dislike that view and the other viewpoints those same people tend to have, but I can't especially pin down why. 

 

(this is not the original lyrics) 

 

 

The world is far, the world is wide; the man needs someone by his side. 

Our Thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back

 

My first thought was "It's correct if you add "to them", and incorrect as-is, because without specifying, one would assume you're going off of the current people involved's morals"

 

so I guess that means I believe in moral relativism, which is true

 

Some morals SHOULD be universal, but a lot of them are clearly very relative to the people and societies in question

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

even if someone else has a moral system that I think makes sense for them, I would still judge the morality of their actions based on my own moral system. for instance, I think that it makes perfect sense for an animal to think that preying on humans is morally justified, but preying on humans is still generally against my own moral system and so I will try to stop it from doing that. I'm not certain what that makes me

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think moral relativism means you believe morals don't exist, just that you understand that/how/why different people will have different morals, and that you don't think their beliefs are "wrong"

 

Of course you'll still act on your own - you don't have to think someone is "wrong" to have conflict with them, like if you're both hungry and fighting over food

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but I do think that animals who prey on humans are wrong, I just also understand why they might think that and think that it makes sense. just because it makes sense doesn't mean that it is right though

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Is Mark's statement ("What Mr. Johnson did was morally permissible") correct? Why or why not?

 

I don't believe starving someone or whipping someone are effective punishments. One is taking away a basic need (food) and will therefore impair their judgement. Whipping is inflicting pain, which I have the bias doesn't serve as a productive punishment. I'm not sure how severe the whipping is, but I imagine that too can impair judgement in certain circumstances.

If you want someone to change their behavior, impairing judgement isn't a great way to go. You can't always get a desperate or scared person to do what you want, and I think those tactics are cruel. I believe there's a better way to go about things.

 

36 minutes ago, Jamie said:

hmm

 

I agree that ethics can be morally relative, but I also think there are some morals that are closer on the universal side simply because we're human. Killing is a universal if not near-universal wrong for instance.

 

However, what food is morally wrong to eat or not- stuff like that is pretty subjective, and people tend to have understandable arguments for it. It's wrong to eat a dog because it looks like our pets- alright. It's right to eat a dog because it's more meat we can feed our family- alright. I would personally feel weird eating a dog, but I don't want to judge someone for eating what's available to them. People eat all kinds of things.

I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff.

My other headmates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Switching LogcBox | Yay! | Bre Translator

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

but I do think that animals who prey on humans are wrong, I just also understand why they might think that and think that it makes sense. just because it makes sense doesn't mean that it is right though

 

Then you believe in moral universalism, I guess

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dogs can look like pets and also be more meat that one can feed to their family, but since that would apply to all people who have families and pet dogs, since they would all have the same conditions then that would mean that all of them should arrive at the same conclusion and that if some of them arrive at a different conclusion then someone must be wrong. perhaps the scales are even enough that the correct conclusion is hard to discern, but just because it is hard to find the one right answer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

 

what is moral is what benefits the groups that you care about. if you do something that harms the groups you care about more than it helps them, that is morally wrong within your own system, which I don't really care about. if you do something that hurts the groups that I care about, then that is morally wrong within my system of morality, which is what is actually important. I think that it would be very silly for someone to worry about being morally correct within someone else's system of morality, and the only way to argue against someone who is correct within their own system of morality is to give reason why they should reconsider the groups that they care about

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...