RELIGION - what? LET'S UNITE AGAINST SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES!

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

Wii fit man
Posts: 11153
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Wii fit man » Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:26 am

Annoying and stupid? I'm referring to murder in the name of religion.
As am I, I'm saying it's stupid and annoying that they say that.



You do know we could analyze these questions until our heads explode
Dammit, I reeeeeeeeealy wish I had the exploding head GIF right now.
effses: Austin confirmed for turbo homosexual
Equation
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:04 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Equation » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:52 am

A consideration of fundamental importance in the philosophy of law is that of the distinction between law and morality. The importance of the distinction is illustrated by the main questions to which it gives rise:

(1) How far and in what sense should the law of a community seek to give effect to its morality?

(2) Is there a moral duty to obey the law even when it does not embody morality, and, if so, are there any limits to this duty?

(3) When a legal rule directs conduct that morality forbids, which should the citizen obey?

(4) Is there ever (and, if so, when is there) a duty to overthrow an entire legal system because of its conflict with morality?

In all these questions the word “law” refers to the specialized form of social control familiar in modern, secular, politically organized societies. The word “morality” in the four questions may, however, refer to any of the following:

(1) the community's relevant factual behavior patterns (its mores);

(2) its socially approved behavior patterns, as sanctified by some widely held rational or religious ideal, whether observed in practice or not (social morality); or

(3) the moral ideals accepted by each individual as binding on one's self and on others, whether or not those others agree (individual morality). All these, like law, are means of controlling human conduct by setting normative standards; and all three have a constantly changing interaction with each other, as well as with law.

The fact that legal and moral norms vary from place to place and from one historical period to another lies in part behind a persistent theme in the philosophy of law: the search for unchanging norms that are universally valid. The most certain way of establishing such norms would be to base them on widely observed facts, such as man's social propensities or the ubiquitous importance of kinship in social organization, which supposedly reveal something fundamental about the nature of man and his adjustment to the world. The attempt to base norms on some such category of facts has for two millennia been associated with the concept of natural law. This concept has many versions.

It has been possible to trace a mainstream of natural-law thought, flowing from Aristotle's premise that the “nature” of any creature, from which obligations must be derived, is what it will be in its fullest and most perfect development. For man, this means what he is when the powers and qualities distinguishing him from other creatures, namely, his reason and his impulse to social living, are fully developed. Natural law embodies those obligations that will appear if mankind's reason and sociality are fully unfolded.
superiorsavior
Posts: 4261
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby superiorsavior » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:00 pm

Shameless self promotion that's mildly on topic; i just uploaded my views on religion to youtubeso you can hear my textwall out loud.

We have to define immoralality.

I define immorality as whatever makes you, as an individual, feel those emotions involved in disaproval, and morality as anything that makes you feel those emotions involved in approval. We are social creatures and this will generally correlate with the law or a religious moral code of some kind. We may well judge people for things that they are not ultimately in control of, or which they had no option to choose. In fact, the reason i brought the issue up is that I believe any and all moral judgments involve doing exactly that. Most actions are motivated mainly by subconscious desires, controlled by a brain few of us know anything about. We have no ability to choose our initial personality state, as we do not exist before it to choose it, and we do not choose or control those external factors which determine both how our initial state will develop and how it will be expressed through action. Judging someone for something they have done, or for who they are, necessarily involves judging them for something they had no choice or control over.

It's also my view that the demands of morality are in stark contrast to those of ethics, which i define as maximizing the happiness of individuals. Morality leads us to punish others for their past misdeeds rather than look to the future and help them overcome their failings and become better people. Morality persecutes people for victimless crimes that create no pain or even cause pleasure, such as sexual immorality. Morality prevents people from performing acts which, while the intentional cause of pain, cause far more pleasure to the majority. People should learn to master our moral emotions and use them to futher ethical conclusions.

On the topic of natural law. The one thing i agree with the existentialists on, is that each man has his own purpose or set of purposes. It does not matter what we were created for, weather by god to worship him or by genes to be their vehicle for prorogation, we do not have to follow out creator, and are motivated by our own purposes. These purposes may be irrational and arbitrary but i believe they boil down to preferences. I therefore believe the natural law is equivalent to the demands of ethics; maximize the good and most people will be doing that which fulfills their purpose.

Is someone who isn't necessarily mentally ill, but really stupid, immoral when they do things that f*ck over other people?

I'm sure you can guess my reply from above. It's immoral if you subjectively disaprove of that kind of behaviour which being unforgiving vindictive assh*les thanks to our evolutionary or divine parent (depending on who you want to blame for our fallen nature) we are probably going to do. Ethically we should be more forgiving, to everyone. Though for most people this is very difficult to do thanks to our general disposition.

What I believe immoral is breaking the rules of modern society, in KNOWING what you are doing is wrong.

Maybe that's what gives you feelings of disaproval. the rules of modern society don't have much to do with ethics though; they protect property rights for the rich allowing the poor to go without health or education, punish victimless crimes like drug addiction and violent pornography, and punish crimes in uneconomical ways rather than preventing future crimes and rehabilitate current criminals. The rules of society are, to my personal morality, immoral, as they are unethical.
Superior2you
Check my Fanarts!

Death will take us so don't fight it. Become it and lean to win.
JohnHorn
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby JohnHorn » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:34 pm

1) How far and in what sense should the law of a community seek to give effect to its morality?
————————
Completely, entirely absolutely, assuming it’s morality is correct and is bassed on proper philosophy science, reasoning argumentation, has reached a proper consensus and so forth.
if it is only 50% their or 10% or mabe 20% their… then the answer is closer to not at all if it is greater then 50% the answer is yes.
—————————
(2) Is there a moral duty to obey the law even when it does not embody morality, and, if so, are there any limits to this duty?
—————————
Well it depend’s if it follow’s a morality that is compatible with both proper morality what ever proper morality may be, and with ones own morality from where ever that may originate then it’s best followed, even if it does not fully embody the morality, but that doesn't answer your question if isn't compatible with morality then it should neither exist as a law nor should it be followed.
—————————
(3) When a legal rule directs conduct that morality forbids, which should the citizen obey?
—————————
Long… depend’s which is of a higher ethical, caliber which is formed threw consensus and if both are… which is formed by the greaer or larger consensus?,
their are some other details to worry about, basically who takes more bribed do people with more merit get a greater say then people who for example are liers approved of immoral act’s in the past without remorse and so forth, if the say is not per-se equal?
—————————
(4) Is there ever (and, if so, when is there) a duty to overthrow an entire legal system because of its conflict with morality?
—————————
when ever it’s systemically unethical or if one can not be certain appears to be systemically unethical.

Naturaly ethical merit consensus quality of evidence size of consensus and the presence or non presence of effected people and qualified professionals especially those of general humanities and respected field’s such as medicine.

Well I do think their is right and wrong view in the sense that one’s view may be either factually incorrect and in the same way morally incorrect naturally this can not be verified except by the overall effect to general population the majority minority group’s victomes the actor’s population at large consequences to different group’s etc.
the more group’s and the larger and diverse the group’s are, and the more it need’s to be balanced on a group and individual scale the harder it always is the higher the potential moral standard is, however even if higher difficulty can mean a higher moral standard it does not actually indicate a higher moral standard.
as such it’s difficult to determine people either make the assumption or try to seek conferming evidence that their moral standard is high enough to be probably correct or higher then the general population[or both.].
I of course naturally did not include the potential that someone may be trying to be unethical or may be indifferent due to corruption have views wrong due to indoctrination bad logic etc. or may have views that are wrong due to an extremist attitude.

So basically I am saying that a moral standard may be unethical by a higher standard meaning that it is probably unethical and also plausibly unethical however a higher external standard to that one contradicting that would of course change that to probably and plausibly ethical and so forth.

however their is naturally the problem that we are discussing less so the fact and more so the starting definition to be honest,— though I do not intent to provide any room for argument of mantra or other such fallacies, or even allow room for an argument of self incredulity I must admit that if one treat’s this as an argument on the same definition of morality as you have given then it’s the falacy of thinking something is because it should or ought to be a certain way. however the way I define morality is different enough from yours that it does not refer to the actual behavior of individuals.
superiorsavior
Posts: 4261
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby superiorsavior » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:35 pm

assuming it’s morality is correct and is bassed on proper philosophy science

All you need to assume is that it assumes its morality is the best it can get; the way it seeks to enforce it's morality must be in line with it's morality though. If it's morality says no killing or violence, then the morality cannot be enforced capitally or corporally. If the morality as minimising pain and maximising pleasure, it must be enforced in the minimally harmful way.

Is there a moral duty to obey the law even when it does not embody morality, and, if so, are there any limits to this duty?

If you want to be an optimally good person then, you must do what morality dictates in each and every situation. If you wish to be a morally acceptable person you should, on average, act in compunction with the demands of morality. If you don't mind being a bad person then it doesn't matter.

If your morality includes harm to yourself as a bad thing then you should follow the law, if there are punishments to not follow it, unless opposing the law is more likely to bring more good than following it.

When a legal rule directs conduct that morality forbids, which should the citizen obey

Is the citizen more interested in not being punished, or in being good? We should ensure that our morality is closer to the ethical truth than their morality though we should always be on the lookout for better moral systems.

Is there ever (and, if so, when is there) a duty to overthrow an entire legal system because of its conflict with morality?

Any time the system conflicts to a greater extent than the act of overthrowing it. Revolution brings pain and precludes pleasure; if the current system brings more pain, or precludes more pleasure, then by my moral system (Which i believe is the best) one should overthrow the system, if one believes one is capable.

I personally believe that victimless crimes, defense of punishment over rehabilitation and crime prevention, denying healthcare access or nutrition or shelter to the poor for no reason other than their poverty, defense of differential wealth and opposing scientific progress are all present in the US and to an extent UK systems, and all grounds for violent and bloody revolution; if such a revolution were likely to succeed and were likely to bring a better system, both of which it is not.
Superior2you
Check my Fanarts!

Death will take us so don't fight it. Become it and lean to win.
superiorsavior
Posts: 4261
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby superiorsavior » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Sorry to double post but i found a quote which nicely summarizes my views on why there are more religious people than irriligious. It's fromthis dude inthis discussion;
People who believe in god don't care about god. That's why you'll find atheists tend to be more "religious" than people who are genuinely religious.

Religion is an excuse to not have to think. It's a convenient, sterilized, pre-packaged philosophy (approved by the FDA for your consumption!)

The strongest force in the universe - Apathy - is on the side of the theists.

Religion propogates because people don't want to think. Without religion, they are left without a metaphysics, without a pre-packaged ethical system, and without an epistemology (even though the one provided by religion is pathetically weak.) Religion is what caused philosophy to be seen as obsolete, which has caused a large portion of the problems we see in society.
Last edited by superiorsavior on Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Superior2you
Check my Fanarts!

Death will take us so don't fight it. Become it and lean to win.
gtaca2005
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:36 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby gtaca2005 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:17 pm

You need a FUCKING FACE BOOK ACCOUNT! :x
"It's not Jesus.... It's a portal monster." - SuperiourSavior
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18846
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Big-Will » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:19 pm

Welp, man up and join the site or live with the frustration of not being able to read the discussion. :lol:
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
BlueEyes4u2nv
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby BlueEyes4u2nv » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:51 am

Gah!! Too many long words in here!!
pussycat
M00ndragon69
Posts: 9593
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:32 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby M00ndragon69 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:52 am

BlueEyes4u2nv wrote:Gah!! Too many long words in here!!




And which words are the ones that are too long? LOL..
Image
Wii fit man
Posts: 11153
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Wii fit man » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:20 am

I believe that the philosphy of gigantic words is nessacary for proper syntax of a good argument sentence and makes your point look better, or should I say fantastic. Furthermore- SuperCagilisticsuperfalladoucious!
effses: Austin confirmed for turbo homosexual
gtaca2005
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:36 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby gtaca2005 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:23 am

Wii fit man wrote:I believe that the philosphy of gigantic words is nessacary for proper syntax of a good argument sentence and makes your point look better, or should I say fantastic. Furthermore- SuperCagilisticsuperfalladoucious!

Longest word in the dictionary:
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

There are 2 words longer, but not in the dictionary.

One has almost 200,000 letters....
"It's not Jesus.... It's a portal monster." - SuperiourSavior
Kelly MacCornmac
Posts: 6142
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:05 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Kelly MacCornmac » Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:02 am

Wii fit man wrote:I believe that the philosphy of gigantic words is nessacary for proper syntax of a good argument sentence and makes your point look better, or should I say fantastic. Furthermore- SuperCagilisticsuperfalladoucious!

I disagree on this one. Just because you have a huge vocab, doesn't make your argument better. If anything, it makes it worse because people wouldn't know what you were talking about. If you stick with words that people know about, then they will know your argument. The only upside of having long ass words is that it prevents people who don't know the definition from arguing.
Causing havoc on the BBS one post at a time

Officially supports the de-perma of GTA, Mike, Cartman, and possibly others


SPU! Join it!
RideTheLightning
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:48 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby RideTheLightning » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:05 pm

Wii fit man wrote:I believe that the philosphy of gigantic words is nessacary for proper syntax of a good argument sentence and makes your point look better, or should I say fantastic. Furthermore- SuperCagilisticsuperfalladoucious!


No it's not. Furthermore, derpa der.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6124
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby triplemultiplex » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:56 pm

There's a difference between using big words in one's statement just to sound smarter and using big words to make the meaning of one's statement more precise. The latter actual does make one's argument better; the former is just linguistic techno-babble.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests