Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

In response to/agree-ance with @MetalSlimeHunt's last point, my question is, when did people start seeing the US as the Land of Moral High Ground? This is a country that has, at different points in history, used guerrilla warfare, promoted Imperialism, committed genocide on a scale you would think impossible, actively used overwhelming force to coerce other nations and groups into deals which lopsidedly benefitted the US, supported notorious terrorist and insurgent groups all over the world, and has invaded countries with no more pretext than to ensure their economic interests are safe.

1776, give or take, in a rotating cycle of which portion of the population or world is in the "moral high ground", "moral low ground", and "USA?" camps. The "USA?" camp is, of course, slowly dying out on the current progression.

[Shadowlord]

It's because our history books say we are the country of the Moral High Ground, and the Greatest Country In The World, omitting almost all the inconvenient truths.

[McTraveller]

I suspect this might be short-lived thanks to Trump, but it's still good news.

In a post-truth world, it's much more accurate to say "it's still news I prefer" - after all, what is "good"?

Seriously though - that is not intended to bash that particular viewpoint - the whole notion of "good" is at the core of this whole political discussion in the first place.  There is some group of people who think their ideas are "right" and "good" and some other group who thinks different (and often opposite) views are good.

The only laws of the universe are physics - and those don't have "good" ratings.  So as much as some folks like to bash religions or the supernatural, at least those belief systems provide some system for defining "good" that is external to popular opinion or base physical laws.  Hard as I might, I can't figure out how humanists or atheists or anyone else can rationally claim any justification for any moral stance - because the law of the universe is basically "strongest local force wins, and entropy, yo."  There is no justification for saying "we should protect sapient beings" or "we should protect the environment" or "we should try and preserver the human race".  Why?  What's the point?  Why is hurting other beings bad? Why is depleting the earth's resources bad? The universe doesn't care.  Does the universe think there is a difference between a sapient race blowing itself up with nukes and that same civilization dying off because a comet hit their planet?

The way I see it - there are only a few logical paths: - you become something like a Nietzchian "the will to power" kind of person, which is "Whatever I can get away with is by definition right", or you end up in some kind of nihilism or "there is no point to anything" or you end up with "there is some kind of supernatural principle that defines good".  I can't see any other stance as fundamentally logical.  That isn't to say the supernatural approach is easy, because then you have the mess of figuring out which supernatural belief is the correct one - especially because by definition, the "supernatural" is not able to be pinned down by the scientific method.

[Shadowlord]

I suspect this might be short-lived thanks to Trump, but it's still good news.

In a post-truth world, it's much more accurate to say "it's still news I prefer" - after all, what is "good"?

Seriously though - that is not intended to bash that particular viewpoint - the whole notion of "good" is at the core of this whole political discussion in the first place.  There is some group of people who think their ideas are "right" and "good" and some other group who thinks different (and often opposite) views are good.

The only laws of the universe are physics - and those don't have "good" ratings.  So as much as some folks like to bash religions or the supernatural, at least those belief systems provide some system for defining "good" that is external to popular opinion or base physical laws.  Hard as I might, I can't figure out how humanists or atheists or anyone else can rationally claim any justification for any moral stance - because the law of the universe is basically "strongest local force wins, and entropy, yo."  There is no justification for saying "we should protect sapient people" or "we should protect the environment" or "we should try and preserver the human race".  Why?  What's the point?  Why is hurting other beings bad? Why is depleting the earth's resources bad? The universe doesn't care.  Does the universe think there is a difference between a sapient race blowing itself up with nukes and that same civilization dying off because a comet hit their planet?

The way I see it - there are only a few logical paths: - you become something like a Nietzchian "the will to power" kind of person, which is "Whatever I can get away with is by definition right", or you end up in some kind of nihilism or "there is no point to anything" or you end up with "there is some kind of supernatural principle that defines good".  I can't see any other stance as fundamentally logical.  That isn't to say the supernatural approach is easy, because then you have the mess of figuring out which supernatural belief is the correct one - especially because by definition, the "supernatural" is not able to be pinned down by the scientific method.

It is entirely possibly to have morals without religion. I do, for instance. You just have to not be a selfish narcissistic prick*, and recognize that other people are people too. I.E. Don't Be Donald Trump.

* I am not saying that anyone here is.

[Strife26]

It's because our history books say we are the country of the Moral High Ground, and the Greatest Country In The World, omitting almost all the inconvenient truths.

I've always wondered about that, because my education didn't contain much of that, other than the objectively accurate "USA bad, Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/Soviet Russia worse" rhetoric.

[smjjames]

I suspect this might be short-lived thanks to Trump, but it's still good news.

In a post-truth world, it's much more accurate to say "it's still news I prefer" - after all, what is "good"?

Seriously though - that is not intended to bash that particular viewpoint - the whole notion of "good" is at the core of this whole political discussion in the first place.  There is some group of people who think their ideas are "right" and "good" and some other group who thinks different (and often opposite) views are good.

The only laws of the universe are physics - and those don't have "good" ratings.  So as much as some folks like to bash religions or the supernatural, at least those belief systems provide some system for defining "good" that is external to popular opinion or base physical laws.  Hard as I might, I can't figure out how humanists or atheists or anyone else can rationally claim any justification for any moral stance - because the law of the universe is basically "strongest local force wins, and entropy, yo."  There is no justification for saying "we should protect sapient beings" or "we should protect the environment" or "we should try and preserver the human race".  Why?  What's the point?  Why is hurting other beings bad? Why is depleting the earth's resources bad? The universe doesn't care.  Does the universe think there is a difference between a sapient race blowing itself up with nukes and that same civilization dying off because a comet hit their planet?

The way I see it - there are only a few logical paths: - you become something like a Nietzchian "the will to power" kind of person, which is "Whatever I can get away with is by definition right", or you end up in some kind of nihilism or "there is no point to anything" or you end up with "there is some kind of supernatural principle that defines good".  I can't see any other stance as fundamentally logical.  That isn't to say the supernatural approach is easy, because then you have the mess of figuring out which supernatural belief is the correct one - especially because by definition, the "supernatural" is not able to be pinned down by the scientific method.

Because we're sapient beings who are aware enough to ponder the mysteries of the universe and debate why doing <insert abstract concept> is right or wrong.

[Cthulufaic]

It's because our history books say we are the country of the Moral High Ground, and the Greatest Country In The World, omitting almost all the inconvenient truths.

I've always wondered about that, because my education didn't contain much of that, other than the objectively accurate "USA bad, Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/Soviet Russia worse" rhetoric.

I think he might be talking about K-12 education kind of stuff, which if he is then he's pretty right as far as my highschool and elementary school education went.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hard as I might, I can't figure out how humanists or atheists or anyone else can rationally claim any justification for any moral stance - because the law of the universe is basically "strongest local force wins, and entropy, yo."  There is no justification for saying "we should protect sapient beings" or "we should protect the environment" or "we should try and preserver the human race".  Why?  What's the point?  Why is hurting other beings bad? Why is depleting the earth's resources bad? The universe doesn't care.  Does the universe think there is a difference between a sapient race blowing itself up with nukes and that same civilization dying off because a comet hit their planet?

Because fuck the universe, that's why. The collective philosophy of the human race is what decides moral stances, not some universal principle. Even when we believed our laws were handed down from gods we were still the ones actually deciding.

You want logic? Our lives are what we actually have and thus what matter, not some nebulous cosmic principle. Being able to live a satisfying existence amongst your fellow humans down here on Earth is what's really important.

"The Point" belongs to me. Well, us. But also me. To believe otherwise is to still try to appeal to God for answers in a godless universe.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Oh man, I really want to reply angrily to @McTraveller, but I feel like this is getting out of the realm of political discussion. May I suggestion the religion thread?

EDIT:

It's because our history books say we are the country of the Moral High Ground, and the Greatest Country In The World, omitting almost all the inconvenient truths.

I've always wondered about that, because my education didn't contain much of that, other than the objectively accurate "USA bad, Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/Soviet Russia worse" rhetoric.

I think he might be talking about K-12 education kind of stuff, which if he is then he's pretty right as far as my highschool and elementary school education went.

Yarp.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We are still discussing philosophy in a way that intersects with religion, not religion itself.

[McTraveller]

It is entirely possibly to have morals without religion. I do, for instance. You just have to not be a selfish narcissistic prick*, and recognize that other people are people too. I.E. Don't Be Donald Trump.

* I am not saying that anyone here is.

Yes, it is easily possible to have morals without religion - but what is your logical basis for those morals? Or is it moral relativism, that says that morals are defined by the group at the time that has the power to define the morals (which is one of the 3 logical methods of determining things) - but I'd argue that morality isn't "right" - it's just "what is."

Because we're sapient beings who are aware enough to ponder the mysteries of the universe and debate why doing <insert abstract concept> is right or wrong.

I'm not sure what question you're attempting to answer with that "because" - this is honest confusion here, possibly influenced by ethanol.

EDIT: Yes, what @MetalSlimeHunt said - it's basically philosophy.  But it seem like generally folks here lean toward the "might (popular or personal) makes right" stance.  <spock>It is logical.</spock>  Just so long as everyone is on the same page that definition of "right" is "as decided by a population group trying to define that stance as right" and not as anything more...

[smjjames]

Because we're sapient beings who are aware enough to ponder the mysteries of the universe and debate why doing <insert abstract concept> is right or wrong.

I'm not sure what question you're attempting to answer with that "because" - this is honest confusion here, possibly influenced by ethanol.

I thought you were trying to ask why do we Humans follow morals and laws when the universe only follows the physical laws of nature and has no morals or cares to give.

[smjjames]

EDIT: Yes, what @MetalSlimeHunt said - it's basically philosophy.  But it seem like generally folks here lean toward the "might (popular or personal) makes right" stance.  <spock>It is logical.</spock>  Just so long as everyone is on the same page that definition of "right" is "as decided by a population group trying to define that stance as right" and not as anything more...

Pfft, are you basing that on the fact that we all play DF? Though to be honest, I haven't played DF in a long while.

I think we tend to be on the dovish side, but there's a healthy range of warhawks and doves IMO.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

We are still discussing philosophy in a way that intersects with religion, not religion itself.

Okay, if we're discussing what constitutes "good" when talking about politics I suppose.

It is entirely possibly to have morals without religion. I do, for instance. You just have to not be a selfish narcissistic prick*, and recognize that other people are people too. I.E. Don't Be Donald Trump.

* I am not saying that anyone here is.

Yes, it is easily possible to have morals without religion - but what is your logical basis for those morals? Or is it moral relativism, that says that morals are defined by the group at the time that has the power to define the morals (which is one of the 3 logical methods of determining things) - but I'd argue that morality isn't "right" - it's just "what is."

Because we're sapient beings who are aware enough to ponder the mysteries of the universe and debate why doing <insert abstract concept> is right or wrong.

I'm not sure what question you're attempting to answer with that "because" - this is honest confusion here, possibly influenced by ethanol.

What's your LOGICAL basis for morals with religion? But besides angrily pointing out how ridiculous of a question that is by drawing attention to the fact that you play nice because otherwise the giant man in the sky will make you feel bad forever if you don't, LOGICALLY from a secular humanistic point of view you do what's best for the people you care about because, in the end, that's what will make you happy. From a government pov, you're supposed to make decisions that best fulfill the needs and wants for as many people as possible, to ensure as a high a quality of life for as many people as possible. It's an imperfect position where moral relativism is a must. But frankly, everyone must decide on their own morals do what they think is right--even if sometimes, you have to do what is best.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

EDIT: Yes, what @MetalSlimeHunt said - it's basically philosophy.  But it seem like generally folks here lean toward the "might (popular or personal) makes right" stance.  <spock>It is logical.</spock>  Just so long as everyone is on the same page that definition of "right" is "as decided by a population group trying to define that stance as right" and not as anything more...

More like "social cohesion determines conceptions of right at a particular time". Everybody who talks about this stuff constantly tries to reduce it. "Just solipsism", "just nihilism", "just power".

The game is what the game goddamn is, period. That's the whole purpose of our engagement with it all. You act like it's all about "obeying the mob", but that's not the way the world is. If it was we'd obviously all be dead by now. Persuasion is the art, experience is the fulcrum for the development of moral stances.

Nor are moral stances necessarily unbound from time.