Izzy and the big philosophical questions...

[manlyfan76]

Actually I'll edit my answer (thanks Dan for that facility) but on this occasion I'll do it by adding to my earlier comment.
What on earth is a 'moral or philosophical' question?
And what relevance (if any) does such a question have to 'real life' (so to speak)?

Moral and philosophical is just thinking and thinking is just using your imagination.

 

[manlyfan76]

I

So what is the best method to counter prejudiced and bigotry? Remove the power - that may be seen as unjust

Love

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Love

A nice sentiment. But what is love? Izzy would argue that his actions and words were out of love, for those who have been misguided. Another one could be "compassion" but again what does that mean. The current government is very fond of the idea of compassionate conservatism, which to me, reeks of; "this is for your own good - you will thank me later".
I don't think it is as simple as a single word or idea (and I don't claim to have the answer), but if I was to offer one it would be empathy. IMHO this is probably the best way to judge if something can be considered moral or not. I.E. If I was this person and someone did this to me - would I be accepting of it? But things can be far more complicated than that; is the person it relates to already acting immorally by the same standard and are there bigger impacts on the whole interaction?
For many situations there is no final moral solution. Take the trolley problem:

 

[Woodsie]

A nice sentiment. But what is love? Izzy would argue that his actions and words were out of love, for those who have been misguided. Another one could be "compassion" but again what does that mean. The current government is very fond of the idea of compassionate conservatism, which to me, reeks of; "this is for your own good - you will thank me later".
I don't think it is as simple as a single word or idea (and I don't claim to have the answer), but if I was to offer one it would be empathy. IMHO this is probably the best way to judge if something can be considered moral or not. I.E. If I was this person and someone did this to me - would I be accepting of it? But things can be far more complicated than that; is the person it relates to already acting immorally by the same standard and are there bigger impacts on the whole interaction?
For many situations there is no final moral solution. Take the trolley problem:

The problem with your sensible empathetic approach in my opinion ... is that stupidy and evil exist .. in forms great and small ... from anti-vaxxers, homopaths, crystal healers, Nazis, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, Muslims .. all the way up to people that put pineapple on Pizza .....

And a concensus of opinion is also not a good idicator of either right or morality .....people are inherently stupid on so many individual levels ..... and people with an ideology are historically excellent at being able to justify the most horrendis behavour in the name of the greater good of their beliefs ....

Power is req'd ... by some ... to serve and protect the many from others and themselves .... and in many instances ... to lead ... which gets us back to square one .... what yardstick of morality and principle do those with the power enforce ?

The best 2 things I can think of is Democracy .. and the rule of law .... the former, imperfect, but better than any alternative yet trialled .... and the latter borne, changed, adapted and improved over generations to address the main issues facing a society and how to live harmoniously together ... and again .. imperfect ....

The human condition is such that I doubt we will ever have an ideal system ....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

The problem with your sensible empathetic approach in my opinion ... is that stupidy and evil exist .. in forms great and small ... from anti-vaxxers, homopaths, crystal healers, Nazis, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, Muslims .. all the way up to people that put pineapple on Pizza .....

And a concensus of opinion is also not a good idicator of either right or morality .....people are inherently stupid on so many individual levels ..... and people with an ideology are historically excellent at being able to justify the most horrendis behavour in the name of the greater good of their beliefs ....

Power is req'd ... by some ... to serve and protect the many from others and themselves .... and in many instances ... to lead ... which gets us back to square one .... what yardstick of morality and principle do those with the power enforce ?

The best 2 things I can think of is Democracy .. and the rule of law .... the former, imperfect, but better than any alternative yet trialled .... and the latter borne, changed, adapted and improved over generations to address the main issues facing a society and how to live harmoniously together ... and again .. imperfect ....

The human condition is such that I doubt we will ever have an ideal system ....

But what determines whether someone is ignorant, compared to having a different idea of something?

 

[Woodsie]

But what determines whether someone is ignorant, compared to having a different idea of something?

Knowledge, experience, education and 1000's of years of historical evidence and consequence .... Arthur Koestler .. (I think I spelt that correct) ... wrote a very interesting book about the differing speeds of Man's emotional development as compared to his Intellectual development based on the evolution of his brain from reptilian to Homo Sapian .....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Knowledge, experience, education and 1000's of years of historical evidence and consequence .... Arthur Koestler .. (I think I spelt that correct) ... wrote a very interesting book about the differing speeds of Man's emotional development as compared to his Intellectual development based on the evolution of his brain from reptilian to Homo Sapian .....

The problem is that these are all subjective ideas. Someone could argue that not having a university degree would make someone ignorant, while others would argue that not having real world experience would make university students ignorant. Using this logic you could discount any idea based on the individuals background, which is something we see on a daily basis.
I would argue that the credibility of individuals should not be question. What is more important is how people get to those ideas in the first place and the logic and evidence which exists to support them.

 

[mozgrame]

So what is the best method to counter prejudice and bigotry?


This entire thread is probably a poorly laid and not very well hidden atheist trap...but I'll step into it for a giggle. Everything...and I mean everything that I have read here has been thrashed out by Christian theologists for hundreds of years. That alone should be evidence enough that man is fundamentally flawed.

I mean...the answers that you guys (and billions of people around the world) are seeking are the very same things Jesus spoke of and gave instruction on how to defeat...but man in his "wisdom" denied his word...and here we are...looking for answers by demanding others need to change to make the world better.

In a thread a couple of years ago now (probably) the topic turned to racism. I suggested then that the only way to do away with racism was to work on your own empathy. I still believe that...but nowadays I reckon there is another front to attack if you want change.

Narcissism. Narcissists frequently suffer from egotism, vanity, jealousy, as well as a lack of empathy/sympathy. There are more people with narcissistic traits these days than seemingly ever before. I think social media...twitter, facebook, Instagram, footy forums (lol) and the like help breed these narcissistic types of people and more people are being diagnosed with NPD. (Narcissistic Personality Disorder)

Studies have shown overuse or excessive self-promotion in social media participation can breed narcissism. When you rely on social media sites for promoting yourself or seeking attention, narcissism can develop.

For people with narcissistic qualities...social networking sites are effective vehicles of self-promotion. Online, they can assemble armies of casual friends, choose the photos in which they look most attractive and, through quotes and comments about themselves, create a compelling personal narrative.

So...how to battle it? Well...you can't change anyone else. You can only work on yourself...and that's what Jesus wanted us all to do. Imagine the world if every man would have followed his lead. We need to cultivate humility!!

Philippians 2:3 addresses the true nature of narcissism. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility, consider others better than yourselves.” That doesn't mean to think less of yourself.

The mind-set of someone who is humble views others as being worthy of preferential treatment. A narcissist considers himself to be the centre of the universe, disregarding the value of other lives, even displacing God from the throne of his life. His life soon becomes void of any peace. “But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts . . . there you find disorder and every evil practice” (James 3:14-16).

It seems that some on here are tiptoeing around Jesus and his teachings. (NOT Churchianity...that stuff sucks)

 

[Woodsie]

Someone could argue that not having a university degree would make someone ignorant, while others would argue that not having real world experience would make university students ignorant.

These two credentials are not mutally exclusive .... and not necessarily rare ... however a parliament of representatives is made up of many disperate natures and experiences ...

You may have gathered that I have a fundamental and pathological inability to disassociate myself from the practical and pragmatic to the total philosophical and theoretical ....

The only alternative to a cadre of elected people given the power to decide issues is .... Anarchy ..

 

[MuzztheEagle]

These two credentials are not mutally exclusive .... and not necessarily rare ... however a parliament of representatives is made up of many disperate natures and experiences ...

You may have gathered that I have a fundamental and pathological inability to disassociate myself from the practical and pragmatic to the total philosophical and theoretical ....

The only alternative to a cadre of elected people given the power to decide issues is .... Anarchy ..

IMO this is a failing of the current democratic system. Information (that's not always accurate) is available to everyone, so everyone forms an opinion based on their personal experience. Anyone with a different opinion is wrong as they had the wrong education and there is no room for discussion. Ideas are decided by popularity, not merit and popularity does not mean an idea is right.

 

[Woodsie]

It seems that some on here are tiptoeing around Jesus and his teachings. (NOT Churchianity...that stuff sucks)

Q) .. Did Jesus .. (or his many biographers) .. teach anything new ... or did he just package known and accepted wisdom very well ...

For example ... I am fairly certain ... even in caveman times ... it would have been frowned upon to shag your brothers missus and steal his favourite club ...

 

[mozgrame]

Q) .. Did Jesus .. (or his many biographers) .. teach anything new ... or did he just package known and accepted wisdom very well ...

For example ... I am fairly certain ... even in caveman times ... it would have been frowned upon to shag your brothers missus and steal his favourite club ...

Hahaha! I am constantly entertained by the way you put things, Woodsie!

Now...let's see. Jesus did talk about love a lot. Love God above everything...love you neighbour...love your enemies...we also know he wasn't big on theft and bull****ting lol, BUT...

Do you think that if Jesus was ripping around first-century Judea telling people to love each other, hewould have been crucified on a roman cross? Neither the romans nor the jewish authorities would have been particularly bothered by a jewish prophet who told people to love each other and don't knock stuff off. The jews may have been a bit worried about loving their enemies, but the romans would have protected a peacemaker that tells the jews to love the romans and turn the other cheek.

So what did he teach that excited everyone so much...pissed off pretty much every religious leader he encountered and eventually saw him scourged and crucified?

After John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee and proclaimed...‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news". Mark 1; 14-15

That's what upset the apple cart.

Atheists often say that Christian morality is no different to other ethical systems based on The Golden Rule...and you can find pre-Christian examples of the same concept if you research the analects of Confucius, in the Mahabharata, the Dhammapada, the histories of Herodotus.

The mistake in this argument though, is that Christian morality is not based on the Golden Rule which states..."A man should not do to others what he would not have them do to him" The Golden Rule can't provide a basis for a functional moral system.

Jesus said, "In everything, do unto others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law of the prophets". That's summary advice...not the basis of Christian morality. How do we know that? Well..in the same chapter (Matthew 7) Jesus says, "Only those that do the will of my father will enter that kingdom". Not, only those that do unto others.....

The heavenly father's will overshadows the true foundation of Christian morality and was articulated in Mathew 22 ; 37 where Jesus answers an expert in jewish law...

Loving the Lord your God and submitting your will to his is a very different moral system and far more objective.

The golden rule is entirely subjective and incapable of accounting for rational calculation or human psychopathy. It provides no moral basis to criticize say...me, if I decide to slip into Miss World's bed unannounced...as long as I don't try to bar her from doing the same to me. It also sanctions a thief to steal on the belief that he wouldn't miss what was stolen if I stole it from him.

The Golden Rule can also easily be transformed into...do unto others as you believe they wish to do unto you....which was the basis for the holocaust.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

The Golden Rule can also easily be transformed into...do unto others as you believe they wish to do unto you....which was the basis for the holocaust.

Easily transformed to "I can do whatever I like based on my own bigotry and paranoia towards others"?
I don't think so.
Come on, I could easily do the same for numerous bible passages but to do so would to simply build a strawman.
What's more your argument implies that to follow God's law is easier (and therfor more correct) than one of self preservation. Which God? Which sect? Which book/s? What is relevant and what needs to be revised?
Compare this to an idea of self preservation and getting your morality from religion is clearly more complected and ambiguous. Religion is equally (or more) subjective, based on the fact that you choose a belief system or have one chosen for you - by other people and not God.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

@Woodsie I think believing something posted on an internet message board because it aligns with your own beliefs would be a great example of ignorance. But it would be very hard to find anyone who wasn't guilty of it from time to time. Thinking without bias is something that all people think they are better at than the reality.

 

[Woodsie]

@Woodsie I think believing something posted on an internet message board because it aligns with your own beliefs would be a great example of ignorance. But it would be very hard to find anyone who wasn't guilty of it from time to time. Thinking without bias is something that all people think they are better at than the reality.

You speak of thinking with a bias as somehow being a negative trait .... but what forms our biased view .... are our biases (or what ever the plural is ) ... not simply the resultant combinations of our experiences, knowledge, historical laws of civilised living .... should we not bring our biases to consider moral and ethical issues ...

Are not our very biases the building blocks of any progressive civilising process ....

And I am not speaking about evidence based facts ... I am talking about social issues .....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

You speak of thinking with a bias as somehow being a negative trait .... but what forms our biased view .... are our biases (or what ever the plural is ) ... not simply the resultant combinations of our experiences, knowledge, historical laws of civilised living .... should we not bring our biases to consider moral and ethical issues ...

Are not our very biases the building blocks of any progressive civilising process ....

And I am not speaking about evidence based facts ... I am talking about social issues .....

How should we determine the problems and solutions for social issues if not with evidence based facts?
Could you give an example where you think a bias would be useful to give a better result?

 

[Woodsie]

How should we determine the problems and solutions for social issues if not with evidence based facts?
Could you give an example where you think a bias would be useful to give a better result?

OK .... but at some point you will need to stop asking the same question .. rephrased ... at engage an opinion ....

Best examplle I can come up with without notice is ...

Backin the early years of the Gay Mardi Gras parade .... I heard a spokesperson for gay pride offer ... that if, as he believed, upwards of 10% of people were gay .. therefore, if such a significant percentage of a species had a particular trait ... how could that trait be considered abhorernt or deviant? ..... fair enough, good point, .... my frontal cortex voted yes .....

But, follow that arguement ..... given the number of arrests, and the suspected numbers of people involved with child pornography and abuse .... if it were argued that considering taht child abuse had been happening for 1000's of years and that a "significant" percentage of people were paedophiles .... therefore the behavour could not be considered abhorent or deviant .....

Same arguement, same logic ..... a no brainer ... right?

Nah ... sorry, my reptilian brain bias says burn the scum ...... there exists a difference between intelligence and wisdom ...... perhaps it is our biases that occasionally allow us to tell the difference .....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

OK .... but at some point you will need to stop asking the same question .. rephrased ... at engage an opinion ....

Best examplle I can come up with without notice is ...

Backin the early years of the Gay Mardi Gras parade .... I heard a spokesperson for gay pride offer ... that if, as he believed, upwards of 10% of people were gay .. therefore, if such a significant percentage of a species had a particular trait ... how could that trait be considered abhorernt or deviant? ..... fair enough, good point, .... my frontal cortex voted yes .....

But, follow that arguement ..... given the number of arrests, and the suspected numbers of people involved with child pornography and abuse .... if it were argued that considering taht child abuse had been happening for 1000's of years and that a "significant" percentage of people were paedophiles .... therefore the behavour could not be considered abhorent or deviant .....

Same arguement, same logic ..... a no brainer ... right?

Nah ... sorry, my reptilian brain bias says burn the scum ...... there exists a difference between intelligence and wisdom ...... perhaps it is our biases that occasionally allow us to tell the difference .....

I would argue the difference between homosexual relationships and adult to child ones is the power imbalance that exists. With two consenting adults, there is no sexual abuse. A child however can be forced or persuaded into acts that they do not understand without proper consent. This is sexual abuse and can cause significant trauma to the child involved. It is the act that is immoral not the fact that someone was born with or developed a condition. Yes churches will argue this very idea towards homosexuality, but if no abuse occurs then where is the immoral act (other than towards god)?
Should a paedophile be punished for their condition if they do not commit any acts towards children? I do think it is a condition which needs to be treated as any form of sexual act with a child is abuse (as there can be no consent). There is a current argument that, labeling all paedophiles as sex offenders does nothing to solve the problem. It stops those with the condition from seeking help and builds an underground culture where abuse is accepted.
Rather than looking for the best solution (to reduce the sexual abuse of children) we allow use bias to demonise others that we don't understand.

Here is a thought that I find interesting in the morals of our society:
If murder is considered to be a more serious offense than rape then why can you murder an animal but not rape one? (I'm not interested in doing either )

 

[Woodsie]

I would argue the difference between homosexual relationships and adult to child ones is the power imbalance that exists. With two consenting adults, there is no sexual abuse.

But that does not address the issue it .... it is your bias speaking .... by the logic of the arguement .... if enough people are prepared to use power and force .... then the usage of that power and force is not abhorent ....

 

[mozgrame]

Richard "The night stalker" Rameriz once said..."Killing is killing, whether done for duty, profit or fun".

Was he correct? Subjectively - No. Objectively - Yes.

Are we looking for truth...or just trying to find evidence to back up our own personal beliefs here?