Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 485
  1. #361
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And by "external reality" I meant "Physical Reality". Thought are immaterial and therefore do not exist in physical reality so yes, my thoughts do not exist in physical reality.
    Point of confusion between us here.

    When you say that a “duty” doesn’t exist in reality, if you mean only physical reality, then you are not saying anything, because they are not “physical” to begin with. It is like saying “logic doesn’t exist in physical reality”. Logic isn’t physical to begin with.

    However, logic does exist in reality. That is the reality I am talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So to clarify (and if at some point I incorrectly state your definition, re-state it correctly):

    1. "Unrealistic" means "immaterial" (in the context of the debate)
    2. Since thoughts are "immaterial", they are "unrealistic"
    3. Since I create thoughts (and thoughts are unrealistic), I am "Deluded".
    1)
    No, unrealistic only means “that which isn’t real”.

    Clearly it is real that you are having a thought, the content of the thought is not however real. Nor does your having the thought MAKE the content of it real.

    So when you say that “My mind creates a duty for people, myself as well as others, to not murder and I assert that that duty exists.”

    That duty never exists in reality, it only exists as an imagination.

    2) Is just fallacious and nothing like what I am saying.
    Since the thoughts are not a reflection or based on something in reality, they are unrealistic.

    3) Because your thought is not a reflection of reality, but you insist that others act as though it is..you are self deluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    So any thoughts that are not representative of something that exists in an objective external reality is ultimately a fantasy?
    One addition, thoughts that do not CREATE reality.
    For example. Love, When my mind creates love, love exists in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Preference towards particular aesthetics (i.e. 'taste')? Fantasy.
    No, the subject exists in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Language? Fantasy.
    No, the subject exists in reality

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Love? Fantasy.
    No, the subject creates reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Rules/laws? Fantasy
    Depends. When they are the subject then is not fantasy. When they are not the subject, then yes


    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Yes, they are imagined and exist only within the mind. But they represent thoughts of 'what if' such imaginations could apply to reality. Again, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch.
    I agree that they can be, I just am not certain they are necessarily the case.
    But I used “fantasy world” in a specific way, I’m don’t’ see the connection you are making.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Both definitions speak of "images". Morality does not concern itself of images. The definitions also use adjectives like "extravagent", "whimsical", "pleasant", and "satisfying", none of which are necessary for a definition of morality. I do not find these definitions of "fantasize" to be particularly accurate of the subjectivist position.
    1) it is not limited to images, but speaks of “ideas”.
    2) Actually, “whimsical” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whimsical is very applicable. There is no “rule” which governs what duty your mind will create. There is no objective determination which marks one as correct and another as incorrect. So, it is specifically descriptive of the statement.


    That is why it is an accurate partial of the statement given.
    To serve man.

  2. #362
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Point of confusion between us here.

    When you say that a “duty” doesn’t exist in reality, if you mean only physical reality, then you are not saying anything, because they are not “physical” to begin with. It is like saying “logic doesn’t exist in physical reality”. Logic isn’t physical to begin with.

    However, logic does exist in reality. That is the reality I am talking about.
    Yep, I'm confused. Define "reality" as you mean it and how logic exists within it.

    I guess I can't proceed until this is cleared up since "delusion" is based on "unrealistic" and unrealistic is based on "reality".

    -------------------

    But maybe this will help me understand.

    If a mother asks her son to clean his room, she is creating a duty and therefore is, by your criteria, self-deluded. Right?

    If not, why not?
    Last edited by mican333; January 30th, 2013 at 02:53 PM.

  3. #363
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yep, I'm confused. Define "reality" as you mean it and how logic exists within it.
    5.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality
    1. the state or quality of being real.
    2. resemblance to what is real.
    3. a real thing or fact.
    4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
    5. Philosophy .
    a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
    b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

    Real = existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious:

    Attention to the underline bold. As that is the heart of the idea of "real/reality".
    ------

    How logic exists within it... I'm not certain I can even answer that question.
    If for some reason you do not accept that Logic exists in reality, then we simply can not have a discussion at all.
    Because I am appealing to logic in my argument, and if you deny it, then you are in effect abandoning logic.
    If you do accept it, then it should be enough that I am accepting it as well. if there is some point you would like to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But maybe this will help me understand.

    If a mother asks her son to clean his room, she is creating a duty and therefore is, by your criteria, self-deluded. Right?

    If not, why not?
    Yes, she is if she thinks she has created a "duty".
    To serve man.

  4. #364
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Real = existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious:

    Attention to the underline bold. As that is the heart of the idea of "real/reality".
    And I recall that you have defined "imaginary" as "existing solely in the mind". So if it exists soley in the mind, it is imaginary or "unrealistic".

    Right?

  5. #365
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    One addition, thoughts that do not CREATE reality.
    For example. Love, When my mind creates love, love exists in reality.
    Question to opponent.

    If I claim that my thoughts of morality creates the reality of my morality, does this get around your objections of subjective morality existing as a fantasy world?
    ~Zealous

  6. #366
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I recall that you have defined "imaginary" as "existing solely in the mind". So if it exists soley in the mind, it is imaginary or "unrealistic".

    Right?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    If I claim that my thoughts of morality creates the reality of my morality, does this get around your objections of subjective morality existing as a fantasy world?
    That is interesting.
    You mean like when God said "let there be light and there was".?
    Something similar to that?

    If so, then I suppose it would.
    To serve man.

  7. #367
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    So as understand why I would be consider deluded (and if I have it wrong just stop at the one you need to correct and skip all that follow).

    1. "Unrealistic" means "existing only in the mind" (in the context of the debate)
    2. Since thoughts exist only in the mind, they are "unrealistic"
    3. Since I create thoughts (and thoughts are unrealistic), I am "Deluded".

    Right?

    And I think a good litmus test for "existing only in the mind" is whether it would still exist if all human minds disappeared. If it disappears with the human mind then it only exists in the human mind.

    Also, assuming I have it right, I will answer the questions you asked earlier since I now know what you mean by deluded.

  8. #368
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is interesting.
    You mean like when God said "let there be light and there was".?
    Something similar to that?

    If so, then I suppose it would.
    Nononono. I'm not talking about physical reality.

    You said thoughts could create realities. You said thoughts of love creates the reality of love. Can thoughts of morality create the reality of morality?
    ~Zealous

  9. #369
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So as understand why I would be consider deluded (and if I have it wrong just stop at the one you need to correct and skip all that follow).
    Right.. I will try.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    1. "Unrealistic" means "existing only in the mind" (in the context of the debate)
    2. Since thoughts exist only in the mind, they are "unrealistic"
    3. Since I create thoughts (and thoughts are unrealistic), I am "Deluded".

    Right?
    No,
    #2 is where you go wrong. It isn't that "thoughts themselves exist only in the mind"... all thoughts are like that.
    It is that the subject of the thought exists only in the mind.

    I said you are "delusional" because your thought is concerning something that is unreal.(your #1)
    IE "moral duties" don't exist in reality". So the subject of your thought or the subject of what your mind is "creating"
    is not representative of reality.

    2a) Because your thought is not about a real thing, nor does it create a moral duty for others in reality(beyond your mind).
    2b) Further, that your opinion which you are insisting is that we should Obey, your fantasy (thought existing only in the mind),
    it is an unreasonable expectation (and thus also unrealistic) for others to obey it.

    3. Therefore you fulfill the definition of "delusion" which is "having a false or unrealistic belief or opinion".


    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Nononono. I'm not talking about physical reality.
    Does logic exist in physical reality?
    What kind of reality does it exist in?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    You said thoughts could create realities. You said thoughts of love creates the reality of love. Can thoughts of morality create the reality of morality?
    I don't think so, No more than you can create love for yourself(as in your the object of the love) in someone else(meaning the love is coming from them) by thinking it. That is how stalkers are made ... they are delusional as well.
    To serve man.

  10. #370
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I said you are "delusional" because your thought is concerning something that is unreal.(your #1)
    So thinking about anything that does not physically exist (unreal) is "delusional", right?

    I'm probably over-explaining but my litmus test still applies. If the subject of one's thoughts would still exist if all humans vanished (like a mountain or a chair) then the thought is not delusional. If the subject of one's thoughts would vanish along with all humans (like a duty), then the thought is "delusional".

  11. #371
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm probably over-explaining but my litmus test still applies. If the subject of one's thoughts would still exist if all humans vanished (like a mountain or a chair) then the thought is not delusional. If the subject of one's thoughts would vanish along with all humans (like a duty), then the thought is "delusional".
    That is the first component, I gave a 1, 2a,2b 3 ... Your are confining it to #1 and leaving out the rest.
    Please don't do that.
    To serve man.

  12. #372
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    I'm just trying to nail down a simple definition of delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2a) Because your thought is not about a real thing, nor does it create a moral duty for others in reality(beyond your mind).
    So that is the definition of "delusional" - having a thought that is not about a real thing (and "real things" are things that exist somewhere other than in the mind).

    Once you confirm that I have the definition right, I will respond to your other points.

    And btw, I am completely willing to concede that I am delusional if the definition accurately applies to me, like this one does. The duty I create is not "real" and therefore I am delusional because I created it - assuming I have the definition right, that is.
    Last edited by mican333; January 31st, 2013 at 08:59 PM.

  13. #373
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm just trying to nail down a simple definition of delusional.
    My mistake. I was thinking you were questioning my argument. Not the definition itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So that is the definition of "delusional" - having a thought that is not about a real thing (and "real things" are things that exist somewhere other than in the mind).
    The definition I was using was.
    "1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:" (from post 338)

    Your not terribly off in your understanding, because it is that your thought isn't about a "real thing"(in this case a real idea) that makes your belief/opinion unrealistic or "false" (as in not "true")

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Once you confirm that I have the definition right, I will respond to your other points.
    I think you are combining the concepts a bit too much. One is built on another, so it isn't quite correct to say that delusion = a thought that isn't about a real thing. That would ignore an important distinction being made, and imply that everyone is delusional. Which is not what I am saying.
    To serve man.

  14. #374
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Take the definition of "delusion" that I forwarded:

    "Having a thought about something that exists solely in the mind" and with as little alteration as possible (leave as much of it intact as you can), make it what you mean.

    I want a definition as simple as the one I forwarded.

    -----------------------

    And really what I'm getting at in nailing down the definition of "delusional" is that you are forwarding an atypical definition which probably makes the word innocuous as opposed to something negative and therefore a valid basis for an objection.

    Delusion typically means that one holds beliefs that contradict reality and it's reasonable to forward that false beliefs are not good. Now, if you want to expand the definition of "delusion" to beliefs that don't contradict reality then "delusion" probably loses its "not good" quality and I can just say "By the definition of "delusional" you are using, I fit the description but since the word, as used, is no longer inherently negative, so what if I fit the description forwarded by you?"

    So really I'd like to drop "delusion". I do not concede that being "delusional" is inherently bad so even if you manage to pin the word on me, so what?

    So how about attacking my morality without using ill-defined words?

    Or just provide a simple definition as I requested above and we'll go from there.
    Last edited by mican333; January 31st, 2013 at 10:32 PM.

  15. #375
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Does logic exist in physical reality?
    What kind of reality does it exist in?


    I don't think so, No more than you can create love for yourself(as in your the object of the love) in someone else(meaning the love is coming from them) by thinking it. That is how stalkers are made ... they are delusional as well.
    Dude, what the hell?

    You're contradicting so much of what you said in Post #361.
    ~Zealous

  16. #376
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Dude, what the hell?

    You're contradicting so much of what you said in Post #361.
    You need to be more specific.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I want a definition as simple as the one I forwarded.
    I am confused... How is this
    "1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:" (from post 338)
    Not simple enough?

    Or is it that you want me to include in it the definition of "unrealistic"?
    Like below

    Having False(untrue) or unrealistic(not based on, creating, or reflective of reality, or is excessive, whimsical) beliefs or opinions.

    Is that what your asking for?

    ---------Edit
    Mican, i think what you are asking for is not a reasonable request.
    in my post 338 I defined my terms and explained how I came to my conclusion.
    It isn't a 'definition" that you can ask for, as I have given it several times over and what you present is nothing like it and amounts to a straw-man. You keep asking for "simple", but I admitted that what I was forwarding was NOT simple, and that it would take effort to follow.

    Delusion/delusional etc is clearly defined. The only debate to be had is if I supported my case that it applies to you or your position.
    so this little "end game" goal/hypothetical of
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So how about attacking my morality without using ill-defined words?
    Is hogwash. The definition is there, if it applies to you then you must argue that it applies to you in an innocuous way, or is inherently innocuous term. I really won't stand for you accusing me of "ill-defined words". That I have quoted directly their clear and official meaning, and supported with reasoning that they apply.. only to have you dismiss them with an unsupported accusation.

    So, if that is the end you are looking for, you need to offer some substance to back it up and not just a wordy Na-huh.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; February 1st, 2013 at 06:16 AM.
    To serve man.

  17. #377
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    "1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:" (from post 338)
    Not simple enough?
    Because I believe that you are using an atypical definition of "unrealistic" (and I admit I could be wrong about that since I'm not sure how you are defining that word). But I consider "unrealistic" to contradict reality - as in the belief is contradicted by reality (and I likewise am pretty sure that that is what is meant in the dictionary definition of "delusion").

    For instance, if I believed that everyone in the world would suddenly stop murdering people because I said "You should not murder", then my belief would be unrealistic for clearly murders will still happen and the belief that they would suddenly stop forever contradicts reality and therefore is "unrealistic" and therefore is "delusional".

    But I argue my expectations for saying "You should not murder" is not unrealistic. I don't expect the whole world to stop killing. In fact, I don't expect it to have much of an external impact at all (I only said it to you to get the debate rolling). The most significant effect that my moral position has is on me. I insist to myself that murder is immoral and that decreases the chances of me ever committing murder and therefore my moral position probably has a valuable impact on the world (no one gets murdered by me). If others hearing me say it effects them, even in the tiniest possible way, terrific. If it has no external effect at all, I won't be disappointed (since I realistically expect that would probably be the case).

    Now, if you mean "unrealistic" as something other than "contradicting reality" in the context of the word "Delusional", then the definition of "delusion" that you are forwarding is different that the clearly-negative definition that I adhere to and therefore perhaps is an innocuous definition (again, I can't say for sure until I know what you mean).

    But assuming that your definition of "Delusional" jibes with mine, then I've made my case, at least when it comes to expectations of me communicating my moral position, that I am not delusional.

    And if our definitions of "delusional" don't jibe, then please tell me SIMPLY what you mean. Just use the dictionary definition of "delusional" but instead of "unrealistic" substitute your definition of "unrealistic". For instance I would say "having false or reality-contradicting beliefs or opinions" or "having beliefs or opinions that are false or contradict reality."
    Last edited by mican333; February 1st, 2013 at 08:14 AM.

  18. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  19. #378
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if our definitions of "delusional" don't jibe, then please tell me SIMPLY what you mean. Just use the dictionary definition of "delusional" but instead of "unrealistic" substitute your definition of "unrealistic". For instance I would say "having false or reality-contradicting beliefs or opinions" or "having beliefs or opinions that are false or contradict reality."
    Mican.. I want you to read this paragraph from post 338.. and I want you to tell me if I have defined "delusion" "unrealistic" and any other word that you have asked ...

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    That you know your fantasy world is not true, means that you are "self deluded".
    Now that is a tricky one. Here I mean that the Delusion is caused by yourself. Delusion here is used to mean. "1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:" Emphasis here being the "unrealistic" portion. Finally "Unrealistic" is used "1. interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real" Admittedly there is more to "unrealistic", but that is the sense in which I intend the word delusional".
    Frankly, I am tired of being asked to define that which I have already clearly defined. I honestly do not understand the problem you are having with understanding the word I am using when I have so painstakingly spelled it out in post 338. I mean, they are both right there, yet you have asked me more than 3xs to define. .. what I have already defined, linked and explained the relation between. ...

    I am at a loss, I don't know how to say it different. If you do not understand the meaning of the words when I have LINKED to the definition.. I simply can not help you.. English is all I have, and even that.. not that well.

    So you are going to have to quote to me the definition I gave you, so that I know you are reading the definition. Then pose a question based on the definition I gave. If not.... then you are going to have to do better than asking me to define what I have already defined... because at this point, I'm starting to take it as intentional blindness.
    To serve man.

  20. #379
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    I know what I don't understand better than you know what I don't understand so if you would just heed my requests for clarification as they are asked instead of giving me attitude and demanding that I go re-read something, we'd probably have this cleared up a while back. And post 338 does not define "real" so all of the answers were not there and if you would just do as I asked at the end of my last post instead of forwarding it again and then complaining about how I don't understand, I might have figured it out by now.

    And the thing is I don't know for a fact that we aren't on the same page as far as the definitions go (since you likewise didn't answer that question when I asked it in my last post) but I'm tired of trying to get these answers and I'm just going to assume that we are more or less on the same page. One reason I think we might be on the same page is that your 2a and 2b questions do reflect my understanding of "delusional". So I'm going to assume we are defining it the same way (or close enough to work) and just respond to your points 2a and 2b from the last post. In other words, I'm dropping all semantic issues until it becomes necessary to discuss them again. So here is a rebuttal to those argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2a) Because your thought is not about a real thing, nor does it create a moral duty for others in reality(beyond your mind).
    I don't know what you mean by "real" thing, so I can't respond to that.

    As far as moral duty goes, you originally asked me what I mean when I say "Murder is immoral" and the way it went (all definitions chosen by me but dictionary-correct) is:

    Immoral = should not.
    Should (not) = obligation
    obligation = duty.

    All of which is generated by me in my mind. So I define my "duties", in part, as something that it generated by me. So whether some else accepts my duty is irrelevant to whether it's a duty.

    And I recognize that my duty is a thought in my head so I do not think that my duty is something other than what it is (such as something that actually compels someone else' obedience) so I don't see what's unrealistic about my duty.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2b) Further, that your opinion which you are insisting is that we should Obey, your fantasy (thought existing only in the mind),
    it is an unreasonable expectation (and thus also unrealistic) for others to obey it.
    But I argue my expectations for saying "You should not murder" is not unrealistic. I don't expect the whole world to stop killing because I said they should. In fact, I don't expect it to have much of an external impact at all (I only said it to you to get the debate rolling). The most significant effect that my moral position has is on me. I insist to myself that murder is immoral and that decreases the chances of me ever committing murder and therefore my moral position probably has a valuable impact on the world (no one gets murdered by me) and my expectation is quite realistic - I don't expect myself to murder anyone and I probably never will. If others hearing me say it effects them, even in the tiniest possible way, terrific. If it has no external effect at all, I won't be disappointed (since I realistically expect that would probably be the case).
    Last edited by mican333; February 2nd, 2013 at 11:05 AM.

  21. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  22. #380
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as moral duty goes, you originally asked me what I mean when I say "Murder is immoral" and the way it went (all definitions chosen by me but dictionary-correct)

    Immoral = should not.
    Should (not) = obligation
    obligation = duty.

    All of which is generated by me in my mind. So I define my "duties", in part, as something that it generated by me. So whether some else accepts my duty is irrelevant to whether it's a duty.

    And I recognize that my duty is a thought in my head so I do not think that my duty is something other than what it is so I don't see what's unrealistic about it.
    That's fine. There are indeed, "self-duties" that we all subscribe to. But that isn't the issue. You are not distinguishing between these two statements:

    1) I should not do X.

    2) You (or other people) should not do X.

    This thread is not about #1. It is about how we go about addressing #2.

    Are you suggesting that you do not believe that you can make any evaluation whatsoever about what someone does or does not do (morally)? Or are you saying that because the Newton killer believed he should murder innocent children, he should have (since it was his duty to do so according to the thought in his head)? If so, then you are arguing that everyone ought to simply do what they think of doing...and this is "morality." It's very problematic obviously. But without further clarification, it is the only way to understand what you are saying there.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 
Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. God: Did God Commit Murder?
    By Tarja in forum Religion
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: November 6th, 2008, 04:09 PM
  2. Home school VS Public school
    By MindTrap028 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 05:58 AM
  3. New Orleans cops commit suicide...
    By Slipnish in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 7th, 2005, 05:40 AM
  4. Moral Murder?
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: March 14th, 2005, 03:45 PM
  5. Nick Berg video shown to school children...IN school
    By Apokalupsis in forum Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 9th, 2004, 10:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •