FunkyTown

Members
  • Posts

    3723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by FunkyTown

  1. Mormongator AND Ana have both given you examples that they believe, which you dismissed. So now I'm asking you - How do you, specifically, know they get better, as you just stated?
  2. Or we get worse. Without a basic yardstick by which to measure better or worse, and no way of perceiving it, how do you know we get better?
  3. Ana makes a great point. However, you -also- have placed striving to improve as a default morality choice. Why should we? And 'improving' implies at least a passing knowledge of the thing that we are attempting to improve towards. If we do not know, nor do we have a yardstick by which such truth can be known, how do we know if we are improving?
  4. I literally can't. The question you need to ask yourself is: "Do I want to know the answer to the questions I first posed here?" If the answer is yes, then let's reason together and come to a greater understanding. If the answer is no, and you just want an argument, then just say so. It will be less exhausting for you. My suspicion is that you cannot answer the 'Why' as to why you believe things. And because you are intelligent and well-read, this causes you cognitive dissonance. You can't perceive yourself as someone who doesn't know. Rather than admit you don't know(Which would challenge your self-conception), you give vague answers and, when those answers are zeroed in on, you change tack. I don't think it's something you do deliberately. I'm not even certain you recognize it. However, if my answer to you was essentially: "The purpose of life is to live better, more fuller lives" and when questioned on it, I responded with "Schoolchildren know what better means", do you think that you would have accepted that answer? If so, then that is your answer to your original question. It's okay not to know something, but you have to admit you don't know something - You can say "I don't understand why I feel this way. I just do." Or you can give very specific responses, but what you -can't- do is lie to yourself. Either you know why you believe something or you do not. If you do, then tell me. If you don't, then tell me that. If you just want an argument, tell me.
  5. I understand this. There are a lot of disputations amongst Christians as to what is correct, so let me try to speak to you in a way you will understand: Just speak to me like I am said schoolchild. What do you mean by 'better', in the case of the child being force fed euphorics their whole life compared to the child who feels pain and sadness at some point. How is it 'better' to have a fullness of life? What do you mean by that, and why should one seek for that? Because we have had over 100 posts on this topic alone and I am still no closer to understanding the basis behind your beliefs. Every time I attempt to question you, you give vague platitudes or avoid the question.
  6. Okay, great! Then speak to me like I am said schoolchild. What do you mean by 'better', in the case of the child being forcefed euphorics their whole life compared to the child who feels pain and sadness at some point. How is it 'better' to have a fulness of life? What do you mean by that, and why should one seek for that? Because we have had over 100 posts on this topic alone and I am still no closer to understanding the basis behind your beliefs. Every time I attempt to question you, you give vague platitudes or avoid the question.
  7. This is far more than semantics. You have one of two choices, and you are -so close-. Yes, or no: Do you expect that a schoolchild - One completely unlearned, but representing the generic and average child - Understands what something being 'better' is in regards to moral choices. What you're experiencing right now is cognitive dissonance. You have a base assumption - A very important one to this conversation - That mankind cannot possibly know objective truth where it comes to morality. And yet... And yet... When you were irritated(Which cognitive dissonance does), you immediately claimed that 'even a school child' would understand what 'better' is in regards to morality. The answer to that question is very... Very important. It is not semantics and you understand that right now, but personal pride can get in the way: Do you believe that, yes, even a school child knows what the word 'Better' means in regards to moral choices, in which case we can proceed with the argument, or do you believe they don't, in which case I will continue to press you for more specifics?
  8. Now THAT is interesting. So you're saying that I, as a human being, can hear the term 'better' in regards to moral outcomes and can(Even were I just a school child) understand what you mean? Am I getting the gist of what you're saying right?
  9. That wouldn't help you find the answer you're looking for. From what I've heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that: 1) She has a greater fullness of life. And when asked what that meant, and why it is important to have that, you replied: 2) That it was 'better'. I don't think you're deliberately avoiding questions(And I will admit to not answering yours because we still haven't answered mine. Not to any real satisfaction that allows me to talk in a way you would understand and accept). You are well read. You are intelligent. And yet... You cannot give specifics on why you believe the things you do. You can quote great philosophers and explain why they believe the things they do, but when asked about you, personally, you immediately move to vagueness. I have suspicions on why that would be, but I don't think you would accept them were I to say. That's why I want you to speak with me and explain the basis behind your choices - The root cause for your beliefs in specific detail. I suspect you cannot beyond vague platitudes like 'Better' or 'Fulness of life' without any concept of how to describe that in detail, along with why you would want either of those things. And that isn't an insult, by the way - You came looking for answers, and I would love to discuss them, but to do that we need to be speaking the same language.
  10. And again, we are in the category of vagueness. Why, specifically, is it better? And what do you mean by better?
  11. And that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why you made the decision you did. Why did you in particular, choose the woman who let her child have pain? Not some random guys in the past. You - That specificity is very important.
  12. Now that's avoiding the question, and I think you know it. Or you're arguing against something I haven't said. What does it mean to have a 'fulness of life' and why is that important?
  13. Well, I need to know what you mean by 'enjoy'. What gives enjoyment width and depth? Why do you call this a 'fulness of life'. It seems like you have some sort of underlying framework of ethics - An underlying framework that you can't quite elucidate, since you give vague answers like 'Fulness of life' or that 'Appropriate, informed people should' make decisions. If I were to guess, I would say you are not deliberately being obtuse and avoiding the question, you simply have a knowledge that some things are right... Some things are wrong, and while you, personally, do not have the language to elucidate -why- those things are important, you know they are. Is that fair? Or perhaps you -can- describe in a foolproof, underlying way, what a 'Fulness of life' is and why that is important?
  14. "See". I was invisible for 3 years. It was a curse given me by a homeless witch who asked to stay in my home. Thank you for bringing up the painful reason I was gone for so long!😭
  15. But is she? After all, the subjective reality of the daughter is that the universe is a mindless bliss, fogged by pleasure. She never grows. She never learns. She never becomes anything more than a vaguely pleasure-filled object that barely even interacts with the world. Why is it good, do you think, that the universe be taught? I can tell you that of the hundreds of responses I've gotten to that, every single time the answer has been the mother that let the child feel pain occasionally. But why do you think that the child needs to learn when learning implies pain?
  16. If God knows everything, then he knows how to talk to you. You're right - he wants free agency, and if he were here waiting for us to make the wrong move, how could we grow up? So I want you to think about two mothers: Both mothers have daughters. Daughters they love more than themselves, and who they will do anything to be happy. The first mother raises her child, lets her go to school. Teaches her to walk. She falls down occasionally, scrapes her knee - Has her heart broken. Has pain, but the mother is there to kiss her forehead and hold her and comfort her. The second mother decides that she just wants her child to be happy at any cost, so she works all day to purchase enough opiates that the child will never have to learn, or be hurt, and only lives in a dull haze of mindless bliss. Who was the good mother, in your estimation, and why?
  17. Those are all great reasons. So I want you to consider something: Do you believe God is omniscient?
  18. Okay, this is great. And thank you for saying this - You believe in God. You believe He wants what's best for us, so my question is Why do you think God simply will not tell us what He wants? Is it because He is incapable? Or is it because He doesn't care if we know? Or could it be some third thing?:
  19. Okay. Thank you for this. So, please answer the following: 1) Do you think I am trying to trick you? 2) Would you agree that taking 70 posts for you to answer my original question I had in my first post is a bit excessive? 3) Why do you think you are so hesitant to answer plainly the questions that I ask? That last one, you don't have to answer. Just know that it is coming across that way, and I want you to consider - At least to yourself - Why you are so resistant to providing an overarching framework whereby we can actually have a discussion.
  20. All right - I want you to go back. Take a deep breath. Reread the thread we have here. Go ahead - I'll wait. Back? Good. Now, what I want you to consider is: Do you think I have been trying to trick you, or deliberately misinterpret you, or attempt to mislead you? For the most part, I have been asking questions. And when I have attempted to reiterate your points to make sure I've understood, you have told me I was wrong in every single case - Every one. You have stated that our morals are subjective, but that overarching morality is objective. You have stated that you would create a morality based upon consensus and, when the problems with consensus morality were pointed out, you shifted tack and said that 'appropriate, informed people' would make the decisions rather than a consensus. And despite the fact that I have clearly misunderstood your meaning every time I have attempted to clarify your own beliefs in an attempt to speak to you in a language you understood, you are getting irritated as I attempt to clarify what it is that you believe. Would you say that's a fair assessment?
  21. Hahah. Too true. But you recognize that friendly, civilized, educated, informed, democratic debate are subjective, correct? And that you turn to the democratic whole knowing the dangers that are there because you understand implicitly the dangers of the tyrant?
  22. Perfect. So you agree that there is objective morality and we should strive to find that objective morality, but question whether or not we ever can. And for your own morality, you believe that we should treat morality as a consensus - Not because it is infallible, but because the fallibility of an individual should be reigned in by the majority, who will hopefully make better decisions. I'm not going to insult you by suggesting you support things like the tens of thousands guillotined during the French Revolution. And I'm certain you understand that there is group madness that can take hold(I dont want to strawman you, here). Is it safe to say that you cautiously believe the madness of the democratic crowd is less dangerous than the madness of the tyrant?
  23. Hmmm. I never even mentioned 'the greatest good of the greatest number'. For the government to attempt it is a somewhat quaint, victorian, paternalist idea. The QALY is, I think, a considerable improvement on the principle, with at least some claim to objectivity, but in the end we choose our own moralities, and how we justify them. As for your nightmare scenario, I think a suitable collection of suitably qualified individuals would probably find an alternative preferable to nuking Vancouver. I see this scenario not just unlikely, but actually quite impossible. Now, @FunkyTownI have laid out my thinking on what is right and moral and ethical. It's your turn to propose your alternative. Best wishes, 2RM. Great. So you believe that a collection of 'suitably qualified individuals will probably find an alternative' where it comes to nightmare scenarios, right? And you believe that we choose our own moralities and how we justify them? Does that mean that morality is simply subjective, and that no moral system is better or worse than any other?
  24. Right - Am I allowed to use your own justifications for the ethics?