Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

O’Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    No, diversity has its problems. And Asians do better than whites in the US. Is that an inequitable distribution of wealth too? And your country is not doing that well either...
    Nevertheless, the USA has by far the largest wealth inequality gap of 55 countries studied.

    https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/ameri...th-inequality/

    Humans rights and inherent human worth are not products of the evolution.
    Of course, they are. What else would they be, God-given - why would you think that?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      Yes. That's what's why I'm asking you. I assume you'd be arguing that such a standard doesn't exist? If not you're simply begging the question
      Nope.

      If you've reduced ethics to mere anthropology, the field is a complete loss.
      Not at all. Morals and ethics are the result of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals - something, which we share with other intelligent animals to a limited extent.

      If an action is truly meaningless, ultimately, you cannot do it for any rational reason. There is no ultimate end to such action except nothingness. They would be meaningless in the objective sense of the word.
      Who’s to say what actions are “truly meaningless”? Our behavior is meaningful to us because we are acting in accordance with our evolved survival instincts as a social species.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        False, the murder of a fetus has been condemned as early as the 1st and 2nd Century. Even if they didn't view it as having achieved full personhood, it was still covered by the noahide laws. Killing it, meant spilling the blood of a person.

        No. “The Jewish position on abortion is nuanced, neither condoning it nor categorically prohibiting it”.

        “Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth”.

        https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ewish-thought/
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Yes. That's what's why I'm asking you. I assume you'd be arguing that such a standard doesn't exist? If not you're simply begging the question
          Nope.
          If you're not arguing against such a standard, when that is the contended subject in a conversation, then you can't assume its falsity in making an argument against it. Which is what you did.

          Leonhard: "Wait, you actually think that's a gotcha? You do realize that even when you have an objective standard its possible for there to be both growth of understanding, and even realizations of errors. The very fact that this is possible is something that can only happen when you have such a standard."
          Tassman: "Not when an ultimate, unchanging “objective standard” doesn’t exist."

          It's as if you only respond to a quote in a reply, and can't remember any posts back in these discussions.

          ...evolution ... evolved survival ...
          The facts of evolution - and our psychology's evolution is still unknown - have nothing to do with ethics. I admire you for wanting to ground ethics in something objective about mankind, but I think you're missing the boat. The history of mankind isn't what you should be looking at. Its the nature of man.

          We are a certain way, there are objective statements that can be made about human nature. That is the place you can start with ethics. Aristotle did as much, and his approach flourished in the Scholastic tradition.

          I've long - for years in fact - suggested that you read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, and perhaps even works on ethics by others in the scholastic tradition.

          Who’s to say what actions are “truly meaningless”?
          You asked, why we would do actions that were meaningless. I answered that if we did, it could not be for rational reasons.

          ...Don't you remember?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            No. “The Jewish position on abortion is nuanced, neither condoning it nor categorically prohibiting it”.

            “Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth”.

            https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ewish-thought/
            Tassman, I know you know about Google. That's nice. But you've used this argument before. In fact you've used myjewishlearning.com before, which is shows you haven't interacted with any of the arguments given to you.

            Even the article admits that Jewish law, is actually against abortion.

            Source: myjewishlearning.com

            At the same time, feticide is prohibited by Jewish law, though there is disagreement over the exact source of this prohibition and how serious an infraction it is. Some consider it biblical in origin based on a verse (Genesis 9.6) that prohibits shedding the “blood of man within man” — a phrase understood to refer to a fetus. Moreover, Judaism teaches that the body is ultimately the property of God and is merely on loan to human beings.

            © Copyright Original Source



            It also says that it is only as a public matter, and non-Orthodox (reform, modern, secular) jews who support abortion. But Orthodox Jews who actually follow Talmud, don't.

            Source: myjewishlearning.com

            As a public policy matter, many of the major American Jewish organizations have been vocal in support of broadening or protecting abortion access. Orthodox organizations, however, do not support broad legal protections for abortion.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Nevertheless, the USA has by far the largest wealth inequality gap of 55 countries studied.

              https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/ameri...th-inequality/
              There is always wealth inequality, which is growing in your country. But so what, we are not Communists after all.


              Of course, they are. What else would they be, God-given - why would you think that?
              Really, how does the process of evolution confer human rights and human worth? Does it also impute house fly rights and worth? Be specific please.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                If you're not arguing against such a standard, when that is the contended subject in a conversation, then you can't assume its falsity in making an argument against it. Which is what you did.
                There’s no argument to be made. Positing the existence of an unchanging “objective standard in ethics” is an assumption that such a standard exists. This is unsupported by facts.

                The facts of evolution - and our psychology's evolution is still unknown - have nothing to do with ethics.
                Of course they do. "Ethics" is not an abstraction - ethics are grounded in facts. And the facts of evolution are the only “facts” we have in this regard. Our behavior has evolved, as has the behavior of all living creatures. And our standards of acceptable/unacceptable behavior (i.e. ethics) have been an ever changing part of that process.

                We are a certain way, there are objective statements that can be made about human nature. That is the place you can start with ethics.
                The origin of “ethics” predates region and philosophy by millennia. As Darwin demonstrates, the sociability of our species, the tendency in natural selection to prefer cooperation in early humanity in order to render our species successful, the gift of inhibitions granted by natural selection to prevent us from killing each other off, the rise of empathy, also naturally ‘selected’ to aid in the ascendancy of our species. ALL these traits evolved in early humanity as survival aids. THIS is the origin of our ethics, NOT philosophical abstractions or divine revelations.

                Aristotle did as much, and his approach flourished in the Scholastic tradition.
                Indeed. And nearly every argument and conclusion of Aristotle about physical science was wrong and misguided. Any tool can be misused, and in Aristotle’s pre-scientific era logic and philosophy were misused repeatedly.

                You asked, why we would do actions that were meaningless. I answered that if we did, it could not be for rational reasons.
                The question was: “Who’s to say what actions are "truly meaningless”? You did not answer the question.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  Tassman, I know you know about Google. That's nice. But you've used this argument before. In fact you've used myjewishlearning.com before, which is shows you haven't interacted with any of the arguments given to you.

                  Even the article admits that Jewish law, is actually against abortion.
                  Nevertheless, the overall Jewish position on abortion is not as restrictive as you like to make it out to be. This is reinforced by the fact that in the Jewish state of Israel abortion is available on demand and paid for by the state if women are not covered by private health insurance.

                  It also says that it is only as a public matter, and non-Orthodox (reform, modern, secular) jews who support abortion. But Orthodox Jews who actually follow Talmud, don't.

                  Source: myjewishlearning.com

                  As a public policy matter, many of the major American Jewish organizations have been vocal in support of broadening or protecting abortion access. Orthodox organizations, however, do not support broad legal protections for abortion.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  True. But Orthodox Jews are a small minority within Judaism.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    There is always wealth inequality, which is growing in your country.
                    Indeed. But the goal is to minimize wealth inequality in the interests of a more stable and equitable community, not maximize it by removing benefits as is occurring under Trump.

                    But so what, we are not Communists after all.
                    Nor fascist dictatorships either. It's a question of balance between the two.

                    Really, how does the process of evolution confer human rights and human worth?
                    You haven’t answered the question. Where does the human sense of self-worth come from if not for the evolution of behavior necessary to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals. God? Specific evidence please.

                    Does it also impute house fly rights and worth? Be specific please.
                    House flies, like all living creatures, have evolved to instinctively value their survival. That’s why they avoid being swatted.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • I may have violently violated the rights of a few now deceased flies today...
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        There’s no argument to be made. Positing the existence of an unchanging “objective standard in ethics” is an assumption that such a standard exists. This is unsupported by facts.
                        Again Tassman, do you even read your own posts. It was you who positively claimed that it was a fact that such a thing didn't exist. I wasn't the one who claimed it existed. I could have chosen to argue that it did, but you were the one bringing forward the claim that it didn't. Therefore the onus is on you to argue this, and you haven't.

                        Of course they do. "Ethics" is not an abstraction - ethics are grounded in facts.
                        This statement is unintelligible, ethics would be an abstraction whether or not it is grounded in fact. Do you even know what the word abstraction mean? Evolution is an abstraction. Physics is an abstraction. Any scientific modelled description, or any metaphysics of any concrete phenomenon is an abstraction.

                        And the facts of evolution are the only “facts” we have in this regard.
                        Why is the history of our behavior, even supposing that we knew of it, more important than what we are?

                        The origin of “ethics” predates region and philosophy by millennia. As Darwin demonstrates, the sociability of our species ... cooperation ... the gift of inhibitions granted by natural selection ... the rise of empathy
                        In none of his writings have Charles Darwin demonstrated any of these things. The closest you get are some speculations in the Origin of Species. In fact, what he proposed is much more focused on the interaction within a family unit. In the Origin of Species he tried to solve the puzzle of sterile ant males. He speculated and proposed what now called Kin Selection theory, where evolution can select for traits that benefit kin.

                        If you work out the mathematics, you can then get certain situations where some genes can be selected for. The problem Tassman, is that you're trying to apply it to group dynamics, and not kin dynamics. And that simply doesn't work. Group Selection theory is pseudoscience, because the effects of kin selection dilute out quickly.

                        "I would lay down my life for one of my children, or eight of my nephews" J. B. S Haldane.

                        So while this excellently can be used to explain why humans are more generous with their kin, than other humans, or why parents in mammals spend a lot of time with their defenseless young, it can't be applied to the puzzle of human behaviour.

                        You also commit the fallacy of adaptionism, if you think that all aspects of human ethics have been naturally selected. There is no evidence that they have.

                        And at the end of the day, to quote the great anthropologist Louis Leakey,

                        "Behaviour doesn't fossilize"

                        And nearly every argument and conclusion of Aristotle about physical science was wrong and misguided.
                        The same ironically can also be said about Darwin. There were plenty of arguments he was entirely on the wrong side, especially when it came to heritability, or in certain cases when he espoused on the races of humans. The fact that both of them were limited by the empirical science of their time doesn't matter.

                        Aristotle in particular was just starting out the tradition of natural philosophy that Darwins, and all of science, is a subset of. It's just a bit silly to give Aristotle as a critique of his entire body work, that he didn't get everything right from the get go.

                        That strikes me more as you wanting a quick and easy reason, to avoid engaging with the body of Aristotle's work.

                        The question was: “Who’s to say what actions are "truly meaningless”? You did not answer the question.
                        Yes, because I answered the other question you posed in the same paragraph. You asked why anyone would perform meaningless actions, and I answered that if anyone did it could not be for any rational reason. That is what an action being meaningful means, that you have a rational end in mind when you perform the action.

                        The scope of that reason is what gives either a very localized meaning to an action "I ate a meal because I was hungry", or a greater meaning "I ate because I want to be alive".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Indeed. But the goal is to minimize wealth inequality in the interests of a more stable and equitable community, not maximize it by removing benefits as is occurring under Trump.
                          How about this, you worry about your country, and we will worry about our country and what it takes to keep it the most powerful, freedom supporting nation, on earth.


                          You haven’t answered the question. Where does the human sense of self-worth come from if not for the evolution of behavior necessary to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals. God? Specific evidence please.
                          God our creator imputes value, you know We hold these truths to be self-evident... Now answer: how does the process of evolution confer human rights and human worth?



                          House flies, like all living creatures, have evolved to instinctively value their survival. That’s why they avoid being swatted.
                          That is not the point, stop avoiding. Does process of evolution also impute house fly rights and worth?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Originally posted by Leonhard
                            Originally posted by Tassman
                            Throughout most of Judeo/Christian history abortion has NOT been regarded as a “sin” at all. This is a recent phenomenon.
                            [Long post delving into rabbinic texts, showing that abortion was condemned throughout most of Jewish history]
                            Nevertheless, the overall Jewish position
                            No, Tassman, you're either being in denial, or you frankly can't remember what you're arguing past the one post you're responding to.

                            You have completely shifted your goalpost.

                            Originally you argued that Jewish culture, throughout the centuries, held that abortion was wrong. You did that by googling and found myjewishlearning, and that's about it. Now that you've been shown that acceptance of abortion is very recent phenomenon, you can't point to modern diversity as support for your statement.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              Again Tassman, do you even read your own posts. It was you who positively claimed that it was a fact that such a thing didn't exist. I wasn't the one who claimed it existed. I could have chosen to argue that it did, but you were the one bringing forward the claim that it didn't. Therefore the onus is on you to argue this, and you haven't.
                              I was responding to the perceived assumption you were arguing for the existence of an “objective standard in ethics”. If not, there is nothing more to be said.

                              This statement is unintelligible, ethics would be an abstraction whether or not it is grounded in fact. Do you even know what the word abstraction mean? Evolution is an abstraction. Physics is an abstraction. Any scientific modelled description, or any metaphysics of any concrete phenomenon is an abstraction.
                              Unlike science, metaphysics is an abstraction, an academic argument, which is unable to be substantiated. Conversely, evolution by natural selection is substantiated by verifiable evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.

                              Why is the history of our behavior, even supposing that we knew of it, more important than what we are?
                              Oh. And what are we then if not highly intelligent evolved social animals with a set of physical attributes and social instincts that best enable us to survive - like many other social animals?

                              In none of his writings have Charles Darwin demonstrated any of these things.
                              Not so. Darwin acknowledged the sociability of our species and the tendency in evolution to naturally select 'cooperation' in early humanity in order to render our species successful. This trait and the others became infused in early humanity as survival aids and are the origins of moral feeling. Even Chimpanzees have their standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior.

                              So while this excellently can be used to explain why humans are more generous with their kin, than other humans, or why parents in mammals spend a lot of time with their defenseless young, it can't be applied to the puzzle of human behaviour.
                              What "puzzle of human behavior"?

                              You also commit the fallacy of adaptionism,
                              That these traits evolved via natural selection is not in dispute. Nor do they necessarily represent adaptations as per the hypothesis of “adaptionism”.

                              if you think that all aspects of human ethics have been naturally selected. There is no evidence that they have
                              No, not ALL aspects of human behavior at all. Just the tendency in natural selection to prefer cooperation in early humanity in order to render our species successful survivors.

                              And at the end of the day, to quote the great anthropologist Louis Leakey,

                              "Behaviour doesn't fossilize"
                              Misleading out-of-context quote, your forte it seems. Leakey learned much about the behavior, physiology and tool-making abilities of hominids from ancient tools and funeral customs from fossilized remains in graves etc. He also realized that the best way to understand the behavior of our ancestors would be to study our closest relatives the Chimpanzees. He reasoned that any common behavior shared between ourselves and chimps would probably also be shared with our ancestors and recognized that they exhibited the precursors of human morality.

                              The same ironically can also be said about Darwin.
                              Incorrect. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a well-substantiated scientific explanation of the process by which organisms change over time. Conversely, metaphysical arguments are premised by assumptions that can never be substantiated by metaphysics alone. E.g. It took verifiable scientific evidence, NOT academic argument, to overturn Aristotle’s theory that the universe was Earth centered?

                              Yes, because I answered the other question you posed in the same paragraph. You asked why anyone would perform meaningless actions, and I answered that if anyone did it could not be for any rational reason.
                              Nevertheless, rational or otherwise, such behavior is NOT meaningless to the person performing such actions.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                                Originally you argued that Jewish culture, throughout the centuries, held that abortion was wrong.
                                I have never argued that Jewish culture, throughout the centuries, held that abortion was wrong. My argument throughout has been that Jewish law does not share the belief common among Christian abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. With the exception of some Jewish minorities this remains their position.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                140 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                372 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X