Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

And what is the "real world" seer? Can you deductively conclude its existence?

Of course I can not deductively make the case, that is the point, no one can. We all live with unprovable assumptions.

[seer]

"Unjust" compared to what?

Exactly, there is no universal standard or controlling authority for justice in your world hence ethics are irrational.

So is our recognition that they need to be contained because they are socially harmful, hence our development of the rules of behaviour we call morality. Morality exists as a means of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups

Nonsense, the animal kingdom retains social cohesion even with wide spread rape. And as you keep telling us, we are no more than animals.

[Charles]

No Charles, it can not be answered using deductive reasoning, you know that, that is why you are using subterfuge. Then you questioned my using an assumption as it relates to us knowing reality, yet you offer nothing else. You have to make the exact same assumption without logical justification. That my good man is hypocritical.

There is nothing dishonest in what I am saying. I have written a rather long presentation of why I hold the question cannot be answered. That is because it is unclear and partly misunderstood. I have given my reasons why I think so. Then you and everyone else is free to disagree. Nothing dishonest in that.

[Charles]

And those are wrong why? See Tass is a determinist, with the laws nature determining our thoughts, beliefs and actions. So what you find in the Old Testament are merely behaviors determined by nature.

I like it when the best defence you can deliever is to leave it open whether murdering people because of their sexual activities is fair or not.

[seer]

There is nothing dishonest in what I am saying. I have written a rather long presentation of why I hold the question cannot be answered. That is because it is unclear and partly misunderstood. I have given my reasons why I think so. Then you and everyone else is free to disagree. Nothing dishonest in that.

Charles, just admit that that we can not logically justify the premise that our minds correspond to reality and that we have rely on an unprovable assumption. You know that is the case - why hedge?

[Charles]

No, not the real world, but another real world. If you live in a matrix world, then whether or not there exists another external world would be irrelevant. If there is another universe, external to the one we inhabit, that wouldn't make the one we inhabit any less real.

Your points are rather interesting because they make it so obvious that it is rather unclear what is even ment with the word "reality" in the context in which seer uses it. Some would say that sensation or perception is simply all there is to reality (not that I agree at all). Others argue there must be a mind independent reality in order for there to really be a reality.

[Charles]

Charles, just admit that that we can not logically justify the premise that our minds correspond to reality and that we have rely on an unprovable assumption. You know that is the case - why hedge?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post458981

[seer]

I like it when the best defence you can deliever is to leave it open whether murdering people because of their sexual activities is fair or not.

Really Charles? Why would it be murder? If a country did have the death penalty for certain deviant sexual behaviors how on earth would that be murder?

[seer]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post458981

What does linking to yourself have to do with an actual answer?

[JimL]

Your points are rather interesting because they make it so obvious that it is rather unclear what is even ment with the word "reality" in the context in which seer uses it. Some would say that sensation or perception is simply all there is to reality (not that I agree at all). Others argue there must be a mind independent reality in order for there to really be a reality.

Yeah, I think seer's main point is really just that he can not know which world it is that we inhabit, that he can't know whether the world is one in which reality exists only in the mind, or is one in which there is an external component to reality which corresponds with the mind. My point is that it doesn't really make any difference, whether or not the kind of world to which we belong has an external component to it is irrelevant to the question of whether our minds correspond to that world or not. Our minds obviously correspond to the reality of the world we inhabit whether there is an external component to it or not. If there is an external component to reality, then our minds correspond to that reality, otherwise the existence of an external component would be superfluous, and if reality exists only in our minds, then that is the only reality there is, so the question becomes pointless.

[seer]

Yeah, I think seer's main point is really just that he can not know which world it is that we inhabit, that he can't know whether the world is one in which reality exists only in the mind, or is one in which there is an external component to reality which corresponds with the mind. My point is that it doesn't really make any difference, whether or not the kind of world to which we belong has an external component to it is irrelevant to the question of whether our minds correspond to that world or not. Our minds obviously correspond to the reality of the world we inhabit whether there is an external component to it or not. If there is an external component to reality, then our minds correspond to that reality, otherwise the existence of an external component would be superfluous, and if reality exists only in our minds, then that is the only reality there is, so the question becomes pointless.

Jim, my main point is that we can not logically or empirically (without begging the question) make the case that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. We assume that is does, which is fine, but it is a logically unprovable assumption. That is all I am saying.

[Charles]

What does linking to yourself have to do with an actual answer?

It contains the reason why an answer cannot be given. Rather simple, seer.

[Charles]

Really Charles? Why would it be murder? If a country did have the death penalty for certain deviant sexual behaviors how on earth would that be murder?

Killing would be the right word (I ususally don't speak or write in English so errors occur) but it does not make any difference at all. You take another persons life without any justification.

[Charles]

Jim, my main point is that we can not logically or empirically (without begging the question) make the case that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. We assume that is does, which is fine, but it is a logically unprovable assumption. That is all I am saying.

But you have given no definition of reality and it is hard to see how you can given my original text on these points. And as I have pointed out, some would define "what goes on in our minds" as "reality". I would not agree, but that is not the point.

[seer]

Killing would be the right word (I ususally don't speak or write in English so errors occur) but it does not make any difference at all. You take another persons life without any justification.

Who decides what qualifies as justification? If a culture for instance decided to put adulterers to death why wouldn't that be justified in their culture?