Anesthesia

Argh, it seems like you didn't take my post in at all. You are asking me whether things are right or wrong, that would only be my opinion on those specific matters as opposed to how they are judged by everyone else. I said that there is no universal standard and that we all judge things OURSELVES. If you murdered someone because you didn't like their clothes then you most likely thought it was an okay thing to do. If a passerby also didn't like their clothes then they might think it's alright as well. However, I don't think it was right - NOT based on a universal standard, but because it's what I think from MY viewpoint. As for Charles, like I said: it depends who is judging it whether it is morally wrong or not. I think it was, his family might not agree. The punishment issue is a complex one. Punishments must exist to satisfy the moral majority. If someone breaks the law, then most people think they must be punished either as an act of retribution or individual deterrent - to stop them doing something that the same majority of people considers to be wrong. I think that the law isn't there to decide what is right and wrong, but to keep order - however some will still think its a dictation of what's morally wrong. PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: Anesthesia wrote: Laws are based on the judiciary's view of what is right and wrong. It is okay from CERTAIN moral standpoints to break the law, for example: Dave's wife needs a drug to cure an illness that will kill her if she doesn't get it within 2 months. Mike owns a company who produces the drug, but sells it for an astronomical price which Dave could never afford. Dave steals the drug to save his wife's life. The law says it was wrong because he stole, in my eyes it was right because you can't put a price on life. You said its okay from certain moral standpoints to break the law. I assume you still believe that you should be punished for breaking the law then - and you only personally believe its right. Quote: No, not correct. It depends on the law and the circumstances. Obviously murder is wrong according to everyone but Charles, who murders a guy who put his son in hospital. Charles thought it was not morally wrong to do it, but the majority in this case would disagree - but it's up to the individual to decide if it was right for him to have done that or not in their own eyes. I don't understand why that's not correct so let me rephrase my question. I am not talking about whether not he should be punished for breaking the law, I'm asking whether or not "Charles" did anything morally wrong by killing someone. Is that wrong? Or is it just against the law? Quote: If my parents were threatening your life (perhaps by attacking you immediately) I'd expect you to defend yourself. That isn't to say I'd gladly accept my parents death. People always use killing as an example but it's such a poor one... I don't understand why its a poor example. Let's say they aren't threatening my life. I see them walking down the street and don't like their clothes so I murder them. Is that morally wrong, or just against the law? Quote: I claim to believe that there is no universal standard by which all actions can be measured, not that there is no 'wrong'. There is right and wrong in every single person's minds, but it is them who will judge it. That's exactly what I said. You don't believe in an "absolute" or as you put it "universal standard." I'm just attempting to clarify your position: Is murdering someone for no good reason morally wrong, or just against the law? Quote: It is determined by the individual. What happens is determined by how powerful they are... If you read what I said, I gave the example that if they were immediately threatening your life then it would'nt be morally wrong IN MY OPINION. Of course if it was for 'no reason' then it would be morally wrong in my opinion and the vast majority of opinions.

I didn't mention your morals either, I said your values - meaning your standards (a subtle difference, where values can apply much more widely than morals alone). Your values dictate that there is a universal scale of morality, for example. They might also say that spending time learning rather than working earlier in life will pay off in the long term - they aren't just morals, if you know what I mean?

Laws are based on the judiciary's view of what is right and wrong. It is okay from CERTAIN moral standpoints to break the law, for example: Dave's wife needs a drug to cure an illness that will kill her if she doesn't get it within 2 months. Mike owns a company who produces the drug, but sells it for an astronomical price which Dave could never afford. Dave steals the drug to save his wife's life. The law says it was wrong because he stole, in my eyes it was right because you can't put a price on life. No, not correct. It depends on the law and the circumstances. Obviously murder is wrong according to everyone but Charles, who murders a guy who put his son in hospital. Charles thought it was not morally wrong to do it, but the majority in this case would disagree - but it's up to the individual to decide if it was right for him to have done that or not in their own eyes. If my parents were threatening your life (perhaps by attacking you immediately) I'd expect you to defend yourself. That isn't to say I'd gladly accept my parents death. People always use killing as an example but it's such a poor one... I claim to believe that there is no universal standard by which all actions can be measured, not that there is no 'wrong'. There is right and wrong in every single person's minds, but it is them who will judge it. It is determined by the individual. What happens is determined by how powerful they are...

No, I believe your point was that no atheist can be a good person by your values if his beliefs are true. The only difference with an atheist's values is that the person is judged as good or not by everyone else individually as opposed to one central label.

I understand the philosophical reasons you gave, I just don't agree with them. I just think that people who need to feel there are moral absolutes invent this being so they can have them. I however, don't feel the need for moral absolutes so I don't agree with that philosophy. You gave a good reason for why 'there are no real morals without an infinite-personal being', I just don't think there are 'real' morals at all, so I don't need to subscribe to that.

Do you not understand that this is exactly what christian morals are? They are the morals agreed upon by christians - the only difference is they think that someone else made them up. Christianity is a culture, same as Islam, Judaism and all the other religions. I'm sure two men often claim that this being has told them different and maybe conflicting things.

I never claimed you used it in that reply. :roll: Learn to read, thanks.

To be honest, I doubt even you know what you're talking about. As is evidenced by your constant use of the word 'smarter'. I know how it can be difficult as a tweenager, I know how you always know more than everyone else and are infallible, and I can only guess the belligerence comes from an underlying lack of self esteem.

No, we are talking about facts. To a religious person these are their facts, their realities, that's why it's a religion. :roll: Yes, there is no point in discussing this - as I implied with my very first post to this. The only reason people do because they feel they have to correct untruths. :roll: Maybe if I use enough :roll: I can make myself look intelligent. :roll:

No, you still don't understand. There is a difference between knowledge and intuition, and I am saying that in my opinion being intelligent is the same as being intuitive, as opposed to being knowledgeable. Thinking on your feet as opposed to fitting things to a schema. You should stop using the word 'smarter', as it's so broad.

Because you had garlic for lunch! Nah I think it's because when two people get in a one-on-one they start to only read the other's replies.

No we're talking about facts here... You say these rules to live by exist, and for that to be so then there must be a hard copy of them. If you think "no, people just passed them on" then surely that is open to dozens of generations worth of bias and untruth. What I am getting at is that there is no reliable sourch for these so called universal laws (no, don't say the bible because it's a 2-thousand year old book written by many people and translated by even more) and so they are invalid. Each person interprets them in their own way, leading to extremists who persecute homosexuals for example.

That doesn't say how man came to know them, or modern society for that matter.

How did god dictate these standards?

No, it depends how you define intelligent (insert token roll-eyes smiley). I say that is just knowledge - the equivalent of programs, intelligence being the equivalent of the CPU. Knowing how to deal with a situation from something you've learned is the knowledge of how to do it, rather than the logic and intuition involved in thinking it through for yourself without being taught how. If you are saying that the process of learning something makes you more intelligent rather than the result of having acquired the knowledge then it is not specific to maths, and can be applied to any subject.

Only to a christian.

THIS is the reason I see theists (speficially christians) as arrogant. What an idiotic and offensive thing to say.

That's just unnecessary... I was just clarifying my point, there is no need to be like that. As for the remainder of that post, in the one before it you said that "It's not that it makes you smarter. But developing your knowledge of the appropriate branches of maths to what you hope to do in life will make your working life easier." but then you say that it does increase general mental faculties? Surely the same applies to any subject you may learn, so it's not specific to maths.

dwarfie76, my point was that it does not increase your mental faculties - only furnishes you with more knowledge in that field. I was just replying to MyPurpleCrayon's post saying that it will 'make you smarter'.

How can doing maths 'make you smarter'? It might increase your knowledge in that field, but it can't raise someone's intelligence. Also by choosing it as an option at any stage you are missing out on something else that may be more useful to you.

I disagree with the first part. It's what I was told at school and at 6th form, and I ignored it. I am now halfway through a computer science degree, having done computing A level as well (4 years teaching so far) and never had to use anything more than stuff you'd learn before the age of 12 (so far as I remember anyway). I was told that I wouldn't be able to get on a degree course without it, which was wrong. More than half the courses didn't require maths. My father was a programmer for around 12 years, then a systems analyst and now an accountant, having got the job with ZERO maths qualifications (granted, he did some evening classes in accountancy AFTER he got the job... How he got it is another story :P). The point is he didn't do maths before becoming a programmer. HOWEVER... I agree that it might help to hone a logical brain. My family all have good logical brains, we are all that way inclined so perhaps it wasn't necessary to do maths. It MIGHT help develop logic in someone who has problems with it, but it might also make them fail miserably if they can't do well enough.

In my AI module right now there's a lot of probability work.

Religion can also turn people into arrogant arseholes. So can money. So can a good hairstyle. Whoop dee doo.

The templar church level on Deus Ex Aeris Dying Discovering that the person who has been helping you on System Shock 2 is actually Shodan the evil computer When you encounter the Cyberdemon on Doom

What's new?