Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Izzy and the big philosophical questions...

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Staff member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
17,714
Some interesting observations, thanks, though we're possibly at cross purposes as I tend to see so-called moral or philosophical issues through the prism of politics.
 

MuzztheEagle

Well-Known Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,153
Some interesting observations, thanks, though we're possibly at cross purposes as I tend to see so-called moral or philosophical issues through the prism of politics.
If moral and philosophical ideas are dictated by your political stance then by what method do you come to your own political ideals?
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Staff member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
17,714
I'd say political understanding rather than political ideals, but the method would be dialectical materialism.
 

MuzztheEagle

Well-Known Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,153
Isn't that a philosophical method though? (and quite a complex and controversial one :))
Could you explain your processes of using this to get to a political understanding and how you then use that understanding to view moral or philosophical issues?
 

Woodsie

played strong, done good.
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
10,372
So what is the best method to counter prejudiced and bigotry? Remove the power - that may be seen as unjust. Cure people's ignorance - with what? Why are your facts and opinions more valid than what I have been taught?
Expose it, stamp it out, oppose and explain it.
As interesting, illuminating, entertaining and educational as a philisophical discussion on bigotry and prejudice may be .... the issue has always been who is the person with the power ... the power to stamp out, expose, explain .. and by opposing ..end it ..

Who, or what society is deciding and dictating the norms .... at some point a practical solution .. in the minds of those in power will be sought ....

What are the "prejudices" that say Hitler, Stalin, PolPot, Goebels or the 15th Century Roman Church would wish to stamp out .... or .. if in power, what are the norms of human behavour that say Folau or even Kevin Rudd would mandate ?

This is why censorship, freedom of speech .. (not consequence .. but who decides if any consequences were negative) .. and freedom of the Press are so important .... weighed against hurt feelings .... people must retain the right to express an opinion contrary to what those in power choose to legitimise .....

Viva La Revolution
 

MuzztheEagle

Well-Known Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,153
As interesting, illuminating, entertaining and educational as a philisophical discussion on bigotry and prejudice may be .... the issue has always been who is the person with the power ... the power to stamp out, expose, explain .. and by opposing ..end it ..

Who, or what society is deciding and dictating the norms .... at some point a practical solution .. in the minds of those in power will be sought ....

What are the "prejudices" that say Hitler, Stalin, PolPot, Goebels or the 15th Century Roman Church would wish to stamp out .... or .. if in power, what are the norms of human behavour that say Folau or even Kevin Rudd would mandate ?

This is why censorship, freedom of speech .. (not consequence .. but who decides if any consequences were negative) .. and freedom of the Press are so important .... weighed against hurt feelings .... people must retain the right to express an opinion contrary to what those in power choose to legitimise .....

Viva La Revolution
I think you've just used a good example of the dialectical materialism that @SeaEagleRock8 was talking about (I think, I find the idea very hard to follow).
The idea of power is an interesting one. Consider a socialist government where the government dictates what is right and wrong. Could that not be considered oppressive? Or a truly capitalist one where dominant classes make those decisions and minorities are left without a voice.
Freedom of speech is important but it needs to be the right sort of speech. If you want to put one out there then you must be able to back it up through some from of logical process. If you can't then your opinion is irrelevant and should be regarded as such. This is the sort of speech we need to aim for and not the idea that all opinions are valid and sacred.
 

Woodsie

played strong, done good.
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
10,372
This is the sort of speech we need to aim for and not the idea that all opinions are valid and sacred.
Agree .... but you can't have the good without the bad ..... unless you have sombody with the power to decide which is which ..... and there lies the rub ....

My personal belef is that you are have the right to your opinion and to express it .... but others have the right to consider it ... and tell you that you are wrong and just a numbnutted Punchie .....
 

MuzztheEagle

Well-Known Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,153
Agree .... but you can't have the good without the bad ..... unless you have sombody with the power to decide which is which ..... and there lies the rub ....

My personal belef is that you are have the right to your opinion and to express it .... but others have the right to consider it ... and tell you that you are wrong and just a numbnutted Punchie .....
I don't believe anyone should be judging opinions based on what they believe is right or wrong. Instead opinions should be judged on the methods used by that person to reach their conclusion. If you cannot explain your methods then you are simply making an unproven claim and there is absolutely no value in that. This is what religion does and it uses the idea that faith and feelings are worth as much or more than thought and logic to control and manipulate people.

I really don't like that right to an opinion line. Why should you have the right to an opinion if it is based on nothing more than anecdotes and lies? In my mind an opinion shouldn't be granted as a right, it is something that must be earned. Claiming it as a right gives an impression that all opinions are equally valid, even ones based on flawed logic and lies.
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Staff member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
17,714
Haha funny thread. I certainly don't pretend to understand it but it isn't that complicated really. Materialism, in the history of philosophy, is contrasted with idealism. Idealism speaks to the spirit/soul/god or some sort of supra-natural aspect to life. (queue @mozgrame lol)
Materialism denies this and says nope, a collection of electrons and neutrons and whatever else we can spot smashing around in a 'material' world. (Nothing to do with Madonna)

Dialectical refers to a process, my (totally limited) understanding of this is that things in nature, that is in the material world, are in a relationship with each other that involves tensions and competing interests. What's good for the wolf not so good for the sheep. Etc.

And these tensions are not fixed but are dynamic, meaning they change over time. At certain critical points the tensions and contradictions become irreconcilable, so something has to give. The same principle applies to the history of human civilization. Apparently.
 

BOZO

Well-Known Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,822
So are you suggesting that television is free from accountability when it presents certain views? If a tv show/personality did what I said in my past example would they be free from any accountability?
Punishment and consequences for expressing what sort of belief? That blue is the best colour? Or telling people that black people should be enslaved or exterminated which then results in race riots?



On this site most of us Silveratils want Greenburg exterminated and we use very, very , very colorful words to express those views clearly !

There are no riots no riots at all . Just our bloody well democratic rights to express our views

If Greenburg does not like it then he can go to Saudi Arabia where they cut peoples heads off for expressing their views . No free speech there just Plenty of Punishment and consequences.

The moral of the story

Toughen up people because the fact is ....
Sticks and stones may break our bones but others personal words and views will never hurt us unless we are weak and insecure enough and if we are then we should get professional help because every day life is tough and we need to learn to be tough enough to cope with it

It looks like we both have different views and we wont be seeing eye to eye with this one feathered friend @MuzztheEagle . Have a great day. Enjoy the weekend and go the Manly Sea eagles :)

Last but not least a meme
I like this girl, tats tits and all
because .......
she seems to have bigger balls than some male wimps who get their knickers in a knot by some ones opinion .

0518e5c4a123bc25468fb72f68b8c6b02c09f-wm.jpg
 

MuzztheEagle

Well-Known Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,153
@BOZO, well I tried. I've tried to understand your view points. I've tried to engage in a two way discussion on topics you seem passionate about and not just on this thread. But I've reached my limit of your ****posting and troll like behaviour. If I could offer you some advice I would say that the sound of other people's voices is far more stimulating, enriching and comforting than only ever listening to your own, and this includes others mirroring your own words back to you. But doubt you are interested in the advice of someone unlike yourself.
If you ever decide you want a rational, two way discussion then please let me know. Until then I will be making use of the ignore button.
 

BOZO

Well-Known Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,822
@BOZO, well I tried. I've tried to understand your view points. I've tried to engage in a two way discussion on topics you seem passionate about and not just on this thread. But I've reached my limit of your ****posting and troll like behaviour. If I could offer you some advice I would say that the sound of other people's voices is far more stimulating, enriching and comforting than only ever listening to your own, and this includes others mirroring your own words back to you. But doubt you are interested in the advice of someone unlike yourself.
If you ever decide you want a rational, two way discussion then please let me know. Until then I will be making use of the ignore button.
I have also tried as much as you have tried but I will be more rational and respectful to you and not call your behaviour a troll behavious just because you did not see my point of view .

The moral of the story ...
As soon we all start to acknowledge that the fact of life is we are all different individuals and we all view life from a different perspective we will all get along better
 

wombatgc

Sausage roll eating keyboard warrior.
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
6,825
PSS ... I can't wait to get to coffee tomorrow morning and tell the lads I used a good example of dialectical materialism .... just hope nobody asks me what that means .... hahahah
I’m still trying to sound it out in syllables.
 

globaleagle

SGF0IHJ1bGVzIGFsbCE=
Staff member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
22,026
As interesting, illuminating, entertaining and educational as a philisophical discussion on bigotry and prejudice may be .... the issue has always been who is the person with the power ... the power to stamp out, expose, explain .. and by opposing ..end it ..
Bit 'o Hamlet in thy musings
 

mozgrame

Isaiah 40:31
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
8,213
Well...let's boil it down. What are we looking for? I reckon we should look at moral truth. What is truth itself? It's commonly thought that a statement is true if it lines up with reality, or matches up with the way the world really is. But when we come to moral truth...people tend to try to change the definition.

If I claim that Manly are the best football team ever, that could be true for me but false for someone else. That's because my claim is a subjective truth claim. It's not really about Manly...it's about me. It's true for me...but not for everyone. Subjective truth claims are personal and suit the individual.

If I claim that if you put a Manly bumper sticker on your car, it won't need a fuel source anymore, would that be true for me, but not true for everyone? No, because it's an objective truth...a reality in the external world we can't deny or change with our feelings. Cars need a fuel source. Objective truths are what they are...regardless of what we think or feel about them.

So...are morals subjective/relative or are they objective/absolute??

Moral relativism is the view that moral truths depend on the individual or group that hold them. There are no moral absolutes and no objective ethical right and wrong. Morals are subjective.

Moral absolutism holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes or not. Morals can’t be created by personal conviction; nor do they disappear when an individual or culture rejects them. Ethical rules are objective and universally binding in all cases.

So what is wrong with moral relativism? Why not just go with the flow? If everyone else is doing it and having fun...why not me?? With moral relativism, nothing is ultimately wrong if you can get away with it!! If all morality is equal, then why take a moral stand against evil (rape, murder, child abuse, drug lords, sex trafficking etc)? Why stand up for what I think is right if all morality is subjective and personal?

I think moral relativism is soft. It cheapens human life and creates moral cowards. When morality is reduced to personal tastes, people exchange the question, “What is good?” for the pleasure question, “What feels good?” Rather than basing decisions on “what is right,” decisions are based on self-interest. When self-interest rules, it has a profound impact on behavior, especially how we treat other human beings. The notion of human dignity depends on there being objective moral truths. Instead, we can discard people when they become troublesome or expensive.
 

Woodsie

played strong, done good.
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
10,372
@mozgrame Many years ago ... in a different life ..... I was schooled by an enthusiastic University student ... 80's I think .... that held the view, as was being taught in the hallowed halls .... that there is no such thing as a bad culture ... just different cultures .... this was in the era just following the great multicultural ministry af Al Grasby and the social engineering band ...

I thought at the time that this was the beginning of the moral decay of Western society and the end of the world as we knew it .... but she was a good sort and I wanted a r... so I just nodded with profound and understated interest .... go on my dear. I am facinated I murmurred hoarsly ........ whilst thinking that any culture that believed they by taking a razor blade to 9 year old girls genitals, they were somehow doing God's work ..... had forfieted any right to be called a culture ........

My only conundrum with your comments is when historians "judge" people or empires by todays standards .... eg colonialism etc .... yes , your moral truths may be absolute .... but is a person behaving to the best standards and morals of the society and age that he lives in ... be considered a bad person or evil ?
 

mozgrame

Isaiah 40:31
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
8,213
Societies morals are surely subjective. People that live according to the rules of the society they live in are living mostly by abiding by the laws of the land. These laws/rules are themselves man made.

Some people rise against religion in an attempt to display a non tolerance to what they class as evil, controlling, manipulative and backwards behaviour. Do they also intervene on the street when two drug addicts start to beat each other? Do they test taste a grape at the supermarket?

If you are happy to live in, and believe in moral relativism...you can't complain, or give a second thought to the problem of evil. The problem of evil is one of the most commonly raised objections to the existence of God.

Some of the great atheists (Bertrand Russell, David Hume, H.G. Wells) concluded on the basis of the evil and suffering in the world that the God of the Bible must not exist (genocide, child abuse, suicide bombings). The common argument is that if God was all-good and all-powerful he would deal with evil. But evil exists, so God must not. The force of this objection rests upon moral evil being real and some things being objectively wrong.

But such a claim is peculiar if we understand the nature of evil. Evil is a perversion of good. There can be good without evil, but not evil without good. There can be right without wrong, but not wrong unless there is first right. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes, the argument against God’s existence based on evil vanishes. If evil is real, then so is absolute good, which means moral relativism is false.

The Nazis used moral relativism as a defence for their crimes at the Nuremberg trials. The court condemned them because they said there is a law above culture. I believe the court was right.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top Bottom