Miss USA: Health Care Is a Privilege, Not a Right...

[seer]

I've discussed the subject at length and you are wrong. Might makes right is the foundation of morality. Anything else is just assertion without substantiation. I agree that it's a basic concept, but it's a basic concept that is fundamentally wrong and irrational despite its widespread adoption. People aren't comfortable with the idea because they've had this "basic concept" nailed into their head and repeatedly reinforced, cult-like, from childhood to adulthood, but that doesn't make it correct.

That is exactly right, might defines right. And I have never been able to get Carrikature to tell me what else would define right or wrong. I mean if might does not define right, then what does - weakness?

[Sea of red]

That is exactly right, might defines right. And I have never been able to get Carrikature to tell me what else would define right or wrong. I mean if might does not define right, then what does - weakness?

Are you saying that what defines morality is force?

[seer]

Are you saying that what defines morality is force?

I'm saying that might is in the position to define right or wrong, my position is a bit different than Darth's. And if might does not define right then what does? Weakness?

[Meh Gerbil]

Are you saying that what defines morality is force?

I'm with you on this one: I do not think might makes right.

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm saying that might is in the position to define right or wrong, my position is a bit different than Darth's. And if might does not define right then what does? Weakness?

How about conformity to purpose?

For example: It is right or wrong to put diesel or regular fuel into the gas tank of a car? You couldn't know that until you know the design of the engine. If your purpose is to make the car last a long time so it may fulfill your transportation needs then for a diesel car the right choice would be the choice that aligns itself with the engine design. Certainly that isn't a question of might as it is conforming to a purpose within the limitations of your tools.

This is one reason why God's judgement on mankind is less His active striking of moral agents and more a withdrawing of His protection of the same - once He withdraws His protection the sin is allowed to carry out its result. For example: You don't have to punish your kid for putting the wrong type of fuel into his car. That problem will solve itself.

[Sparko]

The purpose of morality is to be a better person and do the ethically correct things to accomplish that.

[seer]

How about conformity to purpose?

For example: It is right or wrong to put diesel or regular fuel into the gas tank of a car? You couldn't know that until you know the design of the engine. If your purpose is to make the car last a long time so it may fulfill your transportation needs then for a diesel car the right choice would be the choice that aligns itself with the engine design. Certainly that isn't a question of might as it is conforming to a purpose within the limitations of your tools.

This is one reason why God's judgement on mankind is less His active striking of moral agents and more a withdrawing of His protection of the same - once He withdraws His protection the sin is allowed to carry out its result. For example: You don't have to punish your kid for putting the wrong type of fuel into his car. That problem will solve itself.

But you are only pushing the problem back one step - who defines the purpose?

[Carrikature]

No Carrikature, this is not as simple as you suggest that is why you keep avoiding my question - then who/what does define right or wrong? Why can't you give an honest and straight answer?

It is that simple. I'm skipping the rest of the conversation because I've answered too many times to count by now, and because I know that any answer given will be rejected in favor of your "no the real reason is" typical response. It's stupid and predictable.

[Carrikature]

Did I start this moral line of questioning? No it was you and guacamole.

Yes, guacamole initially stated that the government is the moral authority. You're the one that ran off with it, though.

[Meh Gerbil]

But you are only pushing the problem back one step - who defines the purpose?

Whoever made the thing defines its purpose.

Ford creates the engine to run on diesel fuel and so their design and purpose determines what is fit for the engine; however, Ford doesn't have the power to stop me from placing the wrong fuel into my vehicle so the right and the wrong of the situation has nothing to do with Ford's might. Ford doesn't exercise some sort of judgement over me when I use the wrong fuel. Ford doesn't strike me with a broken engine. Ford doesn't have to do anything at all but allow the laws of nature to take over. So no, it isn't might that makes Ford right in that situation. It is design and purpose. In fact, if Ford put the wrong fuel recommendation sticker on my car no amount of might on their part would save my engine. Their might is subject to the design and purpose of the engine.

I reject the notion that God rules via might.

[Carrikature]

That is exactly right, might defines right. And I have never been able to get Carrikature to tell me what else would define right or wrong. I mean if might does not define right, then what does - weakness?

I'm saying that might is in the position to define right or wrong, my position is a bit different than Darth's. And if might does not define right then what does? Weakness?

That's just moronic. Strength and weakness can only enforce. They don't define. If there's any such thing as 'right', it's not dependent on any group (in power or not) saying so. The subjectivity you decry so often is never more clear than in a 'might makes right' scenario. That sort of thinking is why we have mass murders and genocide in human history. If you with to truly insist that might makes right, you give up all moral high ground simply because you DO NOT have that power. You can't claim anything is immoral unless you have the power, which you don't (and never will).

This kind of thinking is grade school bully level. They aren't 'right' and they aren't doing 'good', even if no one is around to stop them.



Enforcement and morality are orthogonal. Governments have the power to enforce. They can codify punishments and rewards. That is their power. Those codes may overlap with morality, but they could just as easily defy it. Feel free to insist otherwise. To be consistent, you'll have to stop claiming that abortion or homosexual marriages are wrong (just for example). Good luck.

[Meh Gerbil]

The purpose of morality is to be a better person and do the ethically correct things to accomplish that.

I don't think of morality as having a purpose any more than I'd think of scientific laws having a purpose.
Morality (in my thinking) is just acting in accordance with our design.

Writing down those moral laws may have the purpose of 'don't get hurt'.
The laws themselves are just cold statements of fact.

[Sparko]

I don't think of morality as having a purpose any more than I'd think of scientific laws having a purpose.
Morality (in my thinking) is just acting in accordance with our design.

Writing down those moral laws may have the purpose of 'don't get hurt'.
The laws themselves are just cold statements of fact.

Well since we are fallen creatures who are not following our design, and morality is about becoming the person God wants you to be, that he designed you to be, I think we are saying the same thing.

[seer]

It is that simple. I'm skipping the rest of the conversation because I've answered too many times to count by now, and because I know that any answer given will be rejected in favor of your "no the real reason is" typical response. It's stupid and predictable.

Is it just possible Carrikature that your answer does not hold water? And I won't answer you that way... And you know, I have a pretty good memory and I don't ever remember you offering a clear answer to this question.

[Meh Gerbil]

Well since we are fallen creatures who are not following our design, and morality is about becoming the person God wants you to be, that he designed you to be, I think we are saying the same thing.

Perhaps.
As long as we understand that the moral code cannot make us what God wants us to be, nor can our adherence to that code change us.