Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting
Log in changes to forums

2ndRateMind

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    926

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2ndRateMind

  1. 2ndRateMind
    By all means, if you have an alternative option feel free to propose it. And I shall tell you whether or not I am interested. Best wishes, 2RM.
  2. 2ndRateMind
    I'll take that as a 'No' from you then, @FunkyTown Best wishes, 2RM.
  3. 2ndRateMind
    In this instance, best is what stands up to rigorous criticism, and worst is what doesn't. Best wishes, 2RM.
  4. 2ndRateMind
    No, it doesn't. It suggests an agenda. But it will involve considerable time and effort on my part, so I want to find out before I go to the trouble, whether you guys are interested or not. Best wishes, 2RM.
  5. 2ndRateMind
    1) Because it has been said that my ethical position is not clear. So I shall try to clarify. 2) Because my approach to ethics is a unified theory that attempts to accept the best and reject the worst of the current state of the ethical art. 3) Because, though there can never be an objective metric of anything as qualitative and subjective as ethics, I am going to propose the QALY as semi-objective measure which can help us in our ethical deliberations. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, or 'gut instinct', or 'hearing voices'. Best wishes, 2RM
  6. 2ndRateMind
    OK, I think another summary is due, for the benefit of the casual visitor/reader of the thread. I shall explain slowly and as carefully as I can, what I think and why I think it. It may be that I have been assuming knowledge you just don't have. So, the cunning plan is to proceed as follows: Firstly, I shall explain why discussion amongst parties of differing views is to be encouraged, not feared. Secondly, I shall put forward the reasons why I think we cannot claim to know the difference between good and evil innately and completely. Thirdly, I shall lay out the four main academic approaches to ethics. Fourthly, I shall describe the basics of each of them, and their major strengths and weaknesses. Fifthly, I shall describe why I think they can all be unified into one ethical scheme. Sixthly, I shall describe how and why the metric of the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is used in medical scenarios to determine the allocation of scarce resources. Seventhly, I shall propose how the QALY concept could be extended to help us make our other ethical choices. I shall take questions and objections along the way, and so this programme might take some time to expound. But before I embark, I want to know if this effort will be worthwhile, or wasted. In other words, do you want me to proceed along the above lines, and does this nature of discussion interest you at all? Best wishes, 2RM.
  7. 2ndRateMind
    OK, you have provoked me (but really this is for the last time). I have described to you my philosophical framework. I have described to you how I became a Christian. I have participated. You have not reciprocated, just asked the same boring, irrelevant question 17 times (your count, I can't be bothered to verify) despite the fact I have answered it honestly and completely long ago. Can you understand why I am not particularly interested in discussing with you further? Let me be brutally specific; until you have something interesting and pertinent to say, my inclination is to think you are wasting space. Have a nice life. Best wishes, 2RM.
  8. 2ndRateMind
    So, I think we must, at this point, agree to disagree. I do not see how to make this discussion productive. So, I leave the last word to you; but unless someone comes up with a point of substance, that I might help with, I shall not be partaking further. Best wishes, 2RM.
  9. 2ndRateMind
    That's really sad. It seems you are not really interested in enquiring after truth (which is most effectively achieved by discussion amongst parties of differing opinions), just trashing my thinking, without ever even mounting a constructive criticism. If that's the LDS standard of debate, you will, perhaps, appreciate why I am not (yet) LDS. Best wishes, 2RM.
  10. 2ndRateMind
    OK, so it seems to me that ethics is relevant to religion so far as it pertains to salvation. And the central existential question for humanity is 'what must I do to be saved?' So let me take a guess, based on what you have said, and such as I have gleaned from other conversations. The LDS believe that in a prior life, they were obedient to God's Will. In this life, those who are or become LDS are those that were so obedient. In the next life, the LDS will inherit the highest sphere of Heaven, closest to God. But my conception of salvation is about the way one is; the people are saved not by belief, not by believing this or that, and not by works, by doing this or that, but by being, by actually embodying, to a greater or lesser extent, the way Christ was. In philosophical terms, I lean towards salvation not as epistemological, or even ethical, but as ontological. The belief, and the ethics, follow on naturally. Do you have an opinion? Best wishes, 2RM
  11. 2ndRateMind
    You're squirming @FunkyTown Seems you don't like answering questions much, either. Have you something to hide? Best wishes, 2RM
  12. 2ndRateMind
    I don't think so, necessarily. The examples I gave were ordinary, consumer examples, to be sure. But there is no reason why, in order to improve one's fullness of life, one might not take up yoga, or give more to charity, or serve on an Israeli kibbutz, or decide to go to church on Sundays, or spend one's holiday time on a religious retreat. We can, indeed, must, fit our spiritual lives, domestic lives, and working lives, into the same space. Best wishes, 2RM.
  13. 2ndRateMind
    OK. Is this an automatic knowledge, that every LDS is privy to, or is it something one has to study to obtain, or does one have to have one's prayer answered, or what? And, how do you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, when and whether you are completely right? Best wishes, 2RM.
  14. 2ndRateMind
    It's not that difficult. We speak a common language. There are rules of logic. I was the first to put that question to the forum, though I phrased it differently: 'How do we know we know what is moral?' You merely asked it back, answering my question with the same question, which, as I am sure you will appreciate, is not exactly enlightening. So I asked it back of you. I am genuinely more interested in learning what the LDS think, and why they think it, than I am in what I think, which I already know, anyway. Best wishes, 2RM.
  15. 2ndRateMind
    I asked you to present and justify LDS morality. Now who's prevaricating, slithering and avoiding? Actually, I don't. I am awaiting your criticism of the substance of what I have said, which, so far, you have not really engaged with. Let me give you a clue. You could start your next post as follows: 'Utiltarianism is unsatisfactory because...' And then you could have a next paragraph starting: 'LDS teaching on morality is better than utilitarianism because...' Best wishes, 2RM.
  16. 2ndRateMind
    On the contrary, I have answered many of your (better) questions completely honestly and utterly transparently. I have laid out for you the philosophical background as to where I am at, and my reasoning behind that. You have, in return, decided not to reciprocate. Instead, you have become boringly fixated on a question I have perfectly adequately responded to, because my answer does not fit within your binary mindset. You are better than this! You just need to try harder, and put those little grey brain cells to use. It is time for you to come clean, and lay out the LDS position on morality, and by what reasoning you think it preferable to any other. Best wishes, 2RM.
  17. 2ndRateMind
    Do you have a problem with open, transparent, debate? Do you not like being asked to justify your thinking? You seem to be clinging on to this foolish question as a way of avoiding discussion, and it is not a very productive strategy. Drop it. Best wishes, 2RM.
  18. 2ndRateMind
    You had your answer, previously. You won't get another. If you don't like that answer, well, that isn't really my problem. Best wishes, 2RM.
  19. 2ndRateMind
    I guess from that response you do not know any of us ordinary mortals who know 'absolute moral truth'. So, maybe this 'base assumption' is not a 'fallacy', after all. Best wishes, 2RM.
  20. 2ndRateMind
    I presume you mean Jesus? But He is commonly thought to have been the Son of God amongst Christians, and part of the Godhead Trinity. So, arguably, He does not really count as 'man'. Do you know any of us ordinary mortals who know 'absolute moral truth'? One example will suffice to defeat my position, if you can justify it. Best wishes, 2RM
  21. 2ndRateMind
    Why is that a fallacy? Do you claim to know absolute moral truth? Do you claim to know anyone who does? Best wishes, 2RM.
  22. 2ndRateMind
    Uh huh. You have posed it as an either/or question, but I am telling you my preference is for a both/and situation, provided the quality of argument is good. Best wishes, 2RM.
  23. 2ndRateMind
    I have answered the question. You seem to have failed to understand my answer. I suggest we move on. Best wishes, 2RM.
  24. 2ndRateMind
    I'm not prevaricating. I find I learn the truth most effectively by discussing with others. Best wishes, 2RM
  25. 2ndRateMind
    I do not actually know, @FunkyTown, whether Jesus knew 'objective truth about morality'. The Gospels are not explicit on this matter. But certainly, by His words and deeds, He seemed to assume that He did. And on the contrary, I have suggested one plausible metric to assess moral progress or regress; the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). It is pretty much self evident that the more QALYs experienced per head of population, the better and longer lives are becoming. So, for example, if we decided to eradicate absolute poverty, that would increase quality and quantity of lives considerably. Similarly if peace broke out all over the world, and conflicts ended. Also, I have already discussed my criteria for changing my world-view, and that is that the alternative should be more comprehensive, cogent, coherent and consistent than my current thinking. And I see no reason why knowing the truth and arguing for it should be mutually inconsistent. One can learn a lot while arguing, about one's own position, it's strengths and weaknesses, and that of the other protagonist, and it's strengths and weaknesses. Best wishes, 2RM.