Originally posted by whag
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Human Animal...
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
It was clearly implied, especially given the context of this thread. And then you go on to say:
Emphasis mine. The intent here is pretty obvious: you are equating the desirability of consequences with their moral value.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Machinist View Post
Very intriguing. Correct me here, but are you saying that the phrase "consequences we might not like" implies some sort of moral standard? Would you mind explaining that a little further sir?
Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcomeAtheism 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
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
I think he means this:
Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
I have no idea what that means. Where does this different hardware come from?
Originally posted by seer View PostWhy didn't it override the old hard drives?
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd what makes you think we aren't "genetically" still primitive?
Christopher Hitchens said it best when he said
"Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Machinist View Post
OK Thanks. But even from this standpoint, the question what makes a "good outcome" a good outcome remains. This ideal of "good" and the objective basis of it is what you are MM are arguing, correct?Last edited by seer; 03-29-2021, 11:01 AM.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 Machinist View Post
Very intriguing. Correct me here, but are you saying that the phrase "consequences we might not like" implies some sort of moral standard? Would you mind explaining that a little further sir?P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Consequentialism, has it's problems if an act is moral or not based on future consequences. I save a 17 year old boy from drowning, a few minutes later he drive recklessly and kills a family of five. According to Consequentialism my act of saving the boy was not a moral good.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
Consequentialism doesn't deal with future contingencies, but merely immediate cause and effect and weighing the various effects are actions or (non-action).
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 seer View Post
Where is it said it is limited to an immediate cause and effect? But I think we would agree that saving the 17 year old (his accident being a pretty immediate effect) would not have been a moral good for the family he killed. If not why not just say that saving the life of the boy was a moral good in itself? Why even speak of consequences?
There are better dilemmas that illustrate the problems with consequentialism on the whole, but that's not my job, nor particularly topical to the OP.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
Humans aren't omniscient and wouldn't know that five minutes after being rescued the individual would later go on to kill a family (or anyone at all). I should have been more precise in saying "unknown future contingencies". Mea culpa.
There are better dilemmas that illustrate the problems with consequentialism on the whole, but that's not my job, nor particularly topical to the OP.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 Mountain Man View PostIt was clearly implied, especially given the context of this thread.
And then you go on to say:
Emphasis mine. The intent here is pretty obvious: you are equating the desirability of consequences with their moral value.
This thread is about the tension between "the rational and the animal nature." I interpret this as the (occasional) conflict between desires that were blindly programmed into us in the distant past and desires of a future state which our current actions might be able to bring about.
You and I could have a long (and likely fruitless) conversation about the link between our desires and morality, but that really is a different topic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostYou clearly read something into it that wasn't there, as usual.
No, I said nothing about moral value. I was staying with the topic as laid out in the OP, which also said nothing about moral value. That is something you introduced into the thread, and you seem intent on seeing it everywhere.
This thread is about the tension between "the rational and the animal nature." I interpret this as the (occasional) conflict between desires that were blindly programmed into us in the distant past and desires of a future state which our current actions might be able to bring about.
You and I could have a long (and likely fruitless) conversation about the link between our desires and morality, but that really is a different topic.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThe topic of this thread could be summarized as "Why ought we not give in to our base instincts?" which is a moral question.
Your answer is that we ought not because it can lead to undesirable consequences,
which suggests that the mortality of an action is defined by the desirability of its outcome, which, I think, is obviously flawed reasoning.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostI would summarize it as "Why do we not always want to give in to our base instincts?"Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
144 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 02:22 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
425 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment