Political Forums

Reagaknight

Society determines what is right and wrong based on the prevailing morality which is based on human instinct and, more widely, traditions passed down for thousands of years. I'd like to believe most people have a conscience or a moral compass or whatever you'd like to call it. Do you mean to suggest it's simply a fear of repercussions that keeps you from murdering every person you want to?

__________________
The fox knows many tricks; the hedgehog one good one.

-Archilochus

Seer Travis Truman

But the prevailing morality is based on what the particular society says it is, so that wont do. That is a circular justification.

Also, what is moral is based on whats right and wrong, and so on.

No moral theory is based on instinct, and anyone with natural instinct would know that the legal system is not "good" or "moral".

This is your personal theory, I take it? How can you make such a claim? What senses are involved? Would an alien be expected to be able to observe/understand moral theory based on human instinct? How can such a thing be objective? If My instinct said the opposite of yours, how would you hold Me to your standard?

Appeals to tradition are illogical and ridiculous. You just beg the question again in a different form (postponement of the problem).

Most people cannot even recognise the Truth, despite Myself presenting it.

I do as My True Reality dictates, re-percussions or not.

Your answer, as it stands, is not sufficent in the least.
Most moral theories are based on :
1. Metaphysical
2. God "commanments"
3. Some kind of "deal"/"contract" system.

Here is another way to attack moral theories that society currently uses (This is really a test, to see how bright you are):

A. If a serial killer (lets call him Peter) is in court, and tells the judge "he did it", he is not mentally ill/impaired, and is not responsible, can his claim be proven wrong?

What if he were to argue that his brain was made up of atoms, and his brain controlled his memories, thoughts and actions. His brain is controlled by the laws of physics - and determinism. He therefore argues that he cannot control his actions, they are controlled by the laws of nature/physics.

If determinism is True, Peter cannot possibly be any more accountable than someone who is thrown over a balcony and lands on an old lady, killing her. The same laws of nature that made his body fall onto the lady, made Peter kill via the physical control of his brain, which in turn controls Peter. He ultimately had as much choice and the falling man.

It cannot be proven that determism is wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that Peter may well be 100% correct in that he is not able to control his actions and therefore not morally responsible.

How can Peter be morally responsible now?

__________________
All lies are toxic and harmful.

Reagaknight

Well, most people have some sort of conscience which is surely based on instinct. We're naturally inclined to preserve our own species which means we don't do things which have come to be seen as violating the rights of others. The Golden Rule is "do unto others what you would have done unto you." Anyone who is in a sane state of mind can surely see the logic behind this. If what you believe is right conflicts with what people in general (society) believe is right, then you are not completely sane. It's just the way it works. It's practical democracy, the majority is right and the rest are wrong. No amount of philosophical conjecturing will ever change that.

They really aren't so illogical and ridiculous. Tradition is just the way we've made things work for thousands of years and the way they will continue to work if we keep those traditions. If society doesn't have a moral code based on respect for others, it will negatively impact everyone.

That's a pretty self-important thing to say.

That sounds like existentialism. If mainstream society's reality conflicts with yours, then, as I said, you're wrong for everyone but yourself and the small amount of people who see things according to your moral code. There can't be moral relativity in a society if it is to work efficiently.

I'm not a fan of presumptous people trying to test my intelligence.

Who is Peter claiming did? Himself? In any case, physical and circumstantial evidence is what proves a crime like murder.

If his brain is controlling him, it is also controlling his arguments that it is controlling him. So Peter's identity is his brain, which must be held responsible for what it has caused him to do. Peter cannot be acting as a separate identity blaming his brain for causing him to act, they are the same thing. Though determinism cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be proven right, which means that theories based on it cannot be acceptable in a court of law.

__________________
The fox knows many tricks; the hedgehog one good one.

-Archilochus

Seer Travis Truman

First things first : You are a complete retard. I do not mean that as an insult. You need help.

Wrong. How do you explain other cultures? Hmmm? Think, man. What is wrong to one culture is not to another. And they are HUMANS with INSTINCTS.

Human being have lost this capability when they rejected the Truth.

Excuse Me, while I just flush My books on Global Warming, Wars, genocide, poolution, ozone layer, poisons, biological weapons development, atomic weapons down the toilet. They must all be ficticious. You have spoken otherwise.

But we do. Wrong again.

Try to think. You cant justify morality by the rules of morality L That is circular justification.

You are insane or extremely dumb. There IS NO LOGIC TO YOUR CLAIMS. They are illogical.

A List of Fallacies In Logic

Look up circular reasoning, and appeal to history logical fallacyARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM . Then try thinking.

Wrong. Society is not sane, and its definition of what is right is just capricous and arbitrary.

What about Muslims, who disagree? Or tribes? Or Sweden> Are thier differences tantamount to insanity? Idiot.

I dont NEED to change it, YOU are wrong in the first place.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute Truth or Correctness to authority or to majority. This would be Appeal To Majority.

Q : WHen people thought the earth was flat, do you actually think they were right?

Oh.....The stupidity. Look, you inherently assume your argument is correct to justify it. Traditions NEVER made anything work.

Unlike you, I am important.

Just because something suits societal leaders does not mean that it is right.

Get a 55 IQ last time?

In the example, Peter IS guilty, ther eis no question.

It is a matter of this : YOU CANNOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT FREE CHOICE.

No, his argument sfont control him. He says determinsm does, dummy.
Even so, his arguments are still determined by determism.

What???? That is just stupid.

But his brain could not make any other choice. His brain is just as much under the forces of determisnm as he is.

WHAT ??? It is NOTHING TO FO WITH HIS IDENTITY.

HE CANNOT CHOOSE. So : how can he be responsible ? Thats is why an accident does not make you morally responsible. Dont you understand?

Actually, you are wrong. But that is NOT THE POINT. You are just incompetant, completely so.

Look, this philisophical puzzle is UNSOLVABLE, YOU DILL. IT IS A FAMOUS RIDDLE. IT CANNOT BE ANSWERED. You cannot disprove his story. Therefore, you cannot prove he was ever morally culpable. You cant prove Peter wrong.

__________________
All lies are toxic and harmful.

Reagaknight

Well, I'm obviously dealing with someone who's entire viewpoint has been shaped by a couple of lunatic fringe websites. I would respond to your points individually but I don't care to waste my time. Perhaps, though, you should read up on the more famous argumentum ad hominem, which you seem to rely quite heavily on, as well as maybe looking up the spelling of incompetent before you accuse others of being incompetent. I did recognize the philosophical riddle. You clever little boy. You say it can't be answered, but who said that? Isn't that the point of philosophy, sitting around trying to answer pointless questions and accomplishing nothing? Molesting some children, I suppose, if you're an ancient Greek philosopher. If we're going by determinism, then society has been shaped by the laws of nature and it's not going to change, and the court is invariably going to find Peter guilty because philosophical conjecturing is not a defense. The end. You've still not proven that determinism and more specifically your limited view of it is true and infallible, because you can't.

__________________
The fox knows many tricks; the hedgehog one good one.

-Archilochus

Seer Travis Truman

I am not suggesting that determism is True. You might notice that Forbidden Truth does NOT refer to determinism.

Although it was not proven that it was True in the Peter example, you might recall that Peter has to be proven guilty (and proven morally culpabile) by the legal system

Surely Peter should be no more responsible than a woman who is thrown out of a window and lands on someone(casued them to die)? After all, he has no more control than she does.

You just cannot explain, that is all.

__________________
All lies are toxic and harmful.