Court gives green light to "boobs on bikes" parade (1 Viewer)

[BradCube]

Hey, that post wasn't actually quite as bad as I was anticipating based on your preface slidey! Thanks for keeping it under control.

The funny thing is, I understand everything you are saying. Certainly we have been through these explanations before. But still, I find that there is a conclusion following from what you have said that you either don't want to make, or have already made and just don't care about (trying to say that in the nicest way possible).

If we are subscribing to a system of utilitarianism then that is all it is - a system. Now if you acknowledge this, then the person who commits a morally offensive act is doing nothing more than acting out of line in the system. I honestly can't see how it would be any different to wearing something out of fashion.

To be honest, I think my real problem lies in the beliefs of morality I see in everyday life. I doubt most people fully realize that the objective morality they seem to tout requires a God or lawgiver. It's almost as if they agree with a system of evolutionary based morality intellectually, but ignore it when it comes to everyday life. We act as if our subjective creation of morality is in fact objective.

I fear, that must not be explaining myself properly as I don't think you have understood what I am saying (based on your responses). I'm not purposely trying to demean an atheistic view of morality (and I apologize if it has that effect). All I am trying to do is take the atheistic view of morality to its full conclusion and see what it actually says.

Time for some quotes, so I'm not sounding like the only delusional one

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.

...Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

 

[BradCube]

Well exactly. Why can't we?

I certainly wouldn't care if I saw two consenting adults copulating.
But I don't see your link about allowing children to participate. Certainly not, but there is no reason why they should think that sex is a shameful act.

I suppose I don't see why you are treating children any differently or not linking them into your examples. What in your mind, makes a child's sexual organs any less valid than an adults? Also, to be sure, I wouldn't want my children to think that sex is a shameful act. However, I also wouldn't take them to live public exhibitions or want them to see people copulating in the streets as we shared ice-cream together.

To be sure here, I want to re-state that I am not supporting such a thing with children at all. I feel like I am already treading on shaky ground even coming up with such scenarios. All of this discussion reminds me of Brave New World actually. Probably the only book in Yr 12 that I enjoyed reading.

 

[katie tully]

I suppose I don't see why you are treating children any differently or not linking them into your examples. What in your mind, makes a child's sexual organs any less valid than an adults? Also, to be sure, I wouldn't want my children to think that sex is a shameful act. However, I also wouldn't take them to live public exhibitions or want them to see people copulating in the streets as we shared ice-cream together.

To be sure here, I want to re-state that I am not supporting such a thing with children at all. I feel like I am already treading on shaky ground even coming up with such scenarios. All of this discussion reminds me of Brave New World actually. Probably the only book in Yr 12 that I enjoyed reading.

Consent and understanding of the implications of sexual activity, in my mind are what distinguishes children from adults when it comes to sex.
You seem to be linking a loss of sexual inhibition with allowing sex to be a free for all, and certainly I have no issue with my kid knowing what sex is, but I wouldn't be supporting of his desire to experiment until he was at an age where he could appreciate the ramifications.

Also I think when you hide sex and you make it shameful, instead of allowing kids to be open with sexuality, you lead them towards a path that is ultimately more destructive than if you were honest with them to begin with.

 

[BradCube]

Well, that is a better response than I could could have asked for

Consent and understanding of the implications of sexual activity, in my mind are what distinguishes children from adults when it comes to sex.
You seem to be linking a loss of sexual inhibition with allowing sex to be a free for all, and certainly I have no issue with my kid knowing what sex is, but I wouldn't be supporting of his desire to experiment until he was at an age where he could appreciate the ramifications.

I suppose then my issue lies in that I think public sex acts would affect the understanding my kids would come to have about the implications of sex. Would you disagree? Out of interest, what age would you support your child's desire to experiment?

Also I think when you hide sex and you make it shameful, instead of allowing kids to be open with sexuality, you lead them towards a path that is ultimately more destructive than if you were honest with them to begin with.

I agree completely with this

 

[BackCountrySnow]

Someone has probably already said this but i cbf reading the thread.

How would we respond if in another 100 years, we were considering public displays of incest and pedophilia? (I realize that may be quite a jump in moral differences, but I'm sure my point is not lost)

Pedophilia is damaging to a child. It's a corruption of their innocence and it can completely fuck up their lives.

A society accepting that nudity is natural isn't the same as a society accepting that the exploitation of children is ok.

Perhaps in the future though we might change our veiw on when a child is old enough to give consent. But I doubt it will change dramatically.

 

[Slidey]

The funny thing is, I understand everything you are saying. Certainly we have been through these explanations before. But still, I find that there is a conclusion following from what you have said that you either don't want to make, or have already made and just don't care about (trying to say that in the nicest way possible).

Certainly, I don't care about fretting over whether we call our moral system absolute or relative.

If we are subscribing to a system of utilitarianism then that is all it is - a system.

So is religion and religious morality. Does that thought scare you? Does believing it is divine mandate change the reality of it?

Now if you acknowledge this, then the person who commits a morally offensive act is doing nothing more than acting out of line in the system. I honestly can't see how it would be any different to wearing something out of fashion.

*facepalms*

Wearing something out of fashion doesn't cause physical pain. It's absolutely idiotic to try and say that morality doesn't exist because it's 'only' a 'system'. Try saying that to the political dissidents being tortured by the Chinese government. Many of them are atheist. Are you going to tell them that because they are atheist, they shouldn't mind being tortured? That without God, torture can't be considered bad? "Why so glum chap? Those needles sticking into you are just like somebody wearing something out of fashion. It's not bad or anything."

The fatal flaw in all your rhetoric is that you fail to account for biologically programmed altruism and biologically programmed reaction to stimuli.

Humans have a drive to do good. This drive is fuzzy to define, but it is nonetheless absolute (with the exception being that it is faulty in at most 1% of the population). This alone is enough to nullify any argument that morality without god is arbitrary.

As for that Kai Nelson dude, he sounds fairly uninformed. It's well known that altruism leads to better individual fitness on average. He's arguing you can't arrive at morality through logic. He's wrong, and the evolution of altruism in various species, include humans, is evidence of that. Even without a biological compulsion for altruism, the individual is best off in a society where all agents are acting altruistically. This is simple game theory.

And it's fairly obvious why people treat all morality as absolute, Brad; any utilitarian system is undermined when it is questioned, contradicted or ignored. If one person starts cheating the system by being an egoist, it is at the expense of others. It's important to avoid this to maintain a high level of rights for everybody instead of maximal rights for some at the expense of basic rights of others. How can you guarantee your own rights if you can't guarantee the rights of others?

I ask again: what are you trying to achieve here? What are you trying to prove? So far it looks like you're just struggling with semantics.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

^Ur feeding the troll mang

Public sex runs the risk of placing dirty, soon to become smelly contraceptives in the path of children and old people etc. Also, I don't want to be sitting on no park bench where two coons have been fucking. Public nudity has no such risk. I suppose that could be one key difference.

 

[Slidey]

^Ur feeding the troll mang

I wish. BradCube actually believes the stuff he writes.

 

[BradCube]

I think my point has been lost again

Certainly, I don't care about fretting over whether we call our moral system absolute or relative.

I don't care about what we call our moral system, I care about what it in fact is. I'd be surprised if you didn't care whether our system was absolute or relative but I could understand if you didn't care what it was called.

So is religion and religious morality. Does that thought scare you? Does believing it is divine mandate change the reality of it?

Believing it is divine mandate certainly changes the reality of morality as compared to utilitarianism. It may not change how people act in life (as I propose most act as though there is objective morality), but it certainly changes what the situation in fact is. If however, it turns out that there is no objective morality, then both religious and secular systems of morality are on equal footing regardless of what either proposes or supports.

Wearing something out of fashion doesn't cause physical pain. It's absolutely idiotic to try and say that morality doesn't exist because it's 'only' a 'system'.

The problem lies in that the only reason you equate pain as worse than out of fashion clothing (as I do) is because you are talking as though utilitarianism is absolute truth. This is circular reasoning though because the only reason that you regard utilitarianism as truth is because utilitarianism says it to be so. Do you understand what I mean?

Try saying that to the political dissidents being tortured by the Chinese government. Many of them are atheist. Are you going to tell them that because they are atheist, they shouldn't mind being tortured?

Hardly. No one enjoys pain. I would still say that their belief system doesn't support them being tortured as an objectively wrong act. (Actually, to be honest, I would probably have a little more sensitivity than that, if I were in that situation, but I'm sure you know what I mean)

That without God, torture can't be considered bad? "Why so glum chap? Those needles sticking into you are just like somebody wearing something out of fashion. It's not bad or anything."

It can still be called bad, because the atheist believes in his system of utilitarianism. This does not mean much though for the torturer can simply say that he does not subscribe to a system of utilitarianism and finds torturing him to in fact be a morally good act! Who can call the torturer wrong? Certainly not the utilitarian, since the only reason he calls him wrong is because he is a utilitarian.

The fatal flaw in all your rhetoric is that you fail to account for biologically programmed altruism and biologically programmed reaction to stimuli.

Humans have a drive to do good. This drive is fuzzy to define, but it is nonetheless absolute (with the exception being that it is faulty in at most 1% of the population). This alone is enough to nullify any argument that morality without god is arbitrary.

Its not enough at all, because without a divine lawgiver, good is no longer in fact good. "Good" itself becomes arbitrary and only means whatever the individual decides for it to mean.

As for that Kai Nelson dude, he sounds fairly uninformed. It's well known that altruism leads to better individual fitness on average. He's arguing you can't arrive at morality through logic. He's wrong, and the evolution of altruism in various species, include humans, is evidence of that. Even without a biological compulsion for altruism, the individual is best off in a society where all agents are acting altruistically. This is simple game theory.

Well, I imagine he is arguing that any real truth to morality cannot be reached through logic and reason. Certainly a system of morality could be reached - but it would lack a lot of meaning and truth. But eh, I'm not really fond of arguing on behalf of someone else, so I'll leave it at that.

And it's fairly obvious why people treat all morality as absolute, Brad; any utilitarian system is undermined when it is questioned, contradicted or ignored. If one person starts cheating the system by being an egoist, it is at the expense of others. It's important to avoid this to maintain a high level of rights for everybody instead of maximal rights for some at the expense of basic rights of others.

This is where the utilitarian argument falls apart. The only reason it is important to maintain a high level of rights is because utilitarianism says that it is. For the person undermining or ignoring utilitarianism however, this is not a concern at all.

How can you guarantee your own rights if you can't guarantee the rights of others?

You can't - but this is not a problem for one that does not believe rights are worth anything.

I ask again: what are you trying to achieve here? What are you trying to prove? So far it looks like you're just struggling with semantics.

I'm trying to show the full conclusion of atheistic belief regarding morality. Personally, I find the situation to be a bit dim.

 

[BradCube]

I wish. BradCube actually believes the stuff he writes.

If only it were different hey? Alas, I can only think what I do in fact think...

 

[Slidey]

I think my point has been lost again

Well, you never really had one.

I don't care about what we call our moral system, I care about what it in fact is. I'd be surprised if you didn't care whether our system was absolute or relative but I could understand if you didn't care what it was called.

Nope, don't give a shit whether it's a relative or absolute moral system because it has no bearing on this world.

The problem lies in that the only reason you equate pain as worse than out of fashion clothing (as I do) is because you are talking as though utilitarianism is absolute truth.

Nope. That doesn't even make sense (like most of what you say). The reason I rank pain worse than bad fashion is because pain physically hurts while bad fashion doesn't. Simple enough for even you to understand.

It's because we've evolved a body and brain that tries to avoid things that cause it damage; there is a biological imperative to avoid pain. There is no biological imperative to avoid bad fashion. People explain this to you over and over but you keep ignoring them.

This is circular reasoning though because the only reason that you regard utilitarianism as truth is because utilitarianism says it to be so. Do you understand what I mean?

You're making shit up again. The reason I regard utilitarianism as truth is because I believe in a moral system - (Do you understand that? Please tell me you do; utilitarianism is as fundamental to religious morality as it is secular morality). The reason I believe in a moral system is because pain exists. Pain exists because of a biological imperative for self-preservation. This need formed as a result of the optimisation process of evolution (which is funny because you don't believe in evolution).

There is no deep truth or meaning to it, and there doesn't need to be one.

Hardly. No one enjoys pain. I would still say that their belief system doesn't support them being tortured as an objectively wrong act.

Yeah yeah, I get it. No matter how much a non-religious person says they oppose torture and actually act to oppose it, according to you they secretly support it.

It can still be called bad, because the atheist believes in his system of utilitarianism.

"His system of utilitarianism"?

Utilitarianism is a method of applying morality in the real world. It is not itself a system of morality, and it is independent of any specific moral system.

You've got two main methods of applying morality: egoism and utilitarianism. Pretty much every modern system of morality revolves around utilitarianism because egoism ends up abhorrently conflicting with them.

The fact that you didn't know this just shows how much you're bullshitting.

Moreover, you keep trying to say that because morality is a human construction, it is meaningless. Friendship is a human construction, too. Does that make it meaningless also?

Get over the insignificance of your life please, Brad. I'm certainly not going to keep this up with you; you don't know whether you're Arthur or Martha.

 

[Enteebee]

I don't see why Brad doesn't want to or can't differentiate between normative ethical statements and those of a meta-ethical or epistemological nature, he's definitely had it all laid out for him in this thread and others.

Moreover, you keep trying to say that because morality is a human construction, it is meaningless. Friendship is a human construction, too. Does that make it meaningless also?

For instance I've explained to him that any value system even down to something as 'practical' as our monetary system is a construction and that to imagine that we feel less about ethical statements because we believe they are ultimately built on constructions is like me saying he doesn't really value money because it's just a construction. If he feels our monetary system is anything more than an elaborate human construction then he's free to say so and give me all his cash, if he does not then I don't see how he can condemn our own embrace of systems we know to ultimately be constructions.

A good book on this topic for anyone who isn't yet familiar with it is the Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer.... We understand morality.

 

[Kwayera]

Brad, are you seriously trying to argue against the biological basis for altruism? Again?

 

[katie tully]

I really wish you fags didn't respond with so many sentences, it's so much for my mind to take in

But basically Brad was wrong when he agreed that sex shouldn't be made shameful but tried to throw in something about nudity and paedophilia.
LOTS OF SEX FOR EVERYBODY, HERE IS MY VAGINA I HOPE YOU LIKE IT.

 

[katie tully]

I suppose then my issue lies in that I think public sex acts would affect the understanding my kids would come to have about the implications of sex. Would you disagree? Out of interest, what age would you support your child's desire to experiment?

How?

 

[BackCountrySnow]

LOTS OF SEX FOR EVERYBODY, HERE IS MY VAGINA I HOPE YOU LIKE IT.

omg, are you for serious??

 

[BradCube]

Brad, are you seriously trying to argue against the biological basis for altruism? Again?

Ahh, nope. I'm trying to show that morality doesn't have as much meaning under atheism as what most proclaim it to.

Either way, I think I give up now. It seems like we are just going in circles, or we're arguing about something we already agree on. It seems to be that most people have come to accept the system of morality they propose.

Honestly, the main reason I cannot handle discussions on this forum is the way I am just constantly talked down to and insulted. I purposely make a point of always trying to be reasonable and honest with everyone on these forums, but you guys are just so rude - I don't get it.

This need formed as a result of the optimisation process of evolution (which is funny because you don't believe in evolution).

For the record slidey, I don't think I've ever taken a position on evolution on these forums. I've certainly asked plenty of questions. Please don't assume to know what I believe and add it to your arguments in order to belittle me.

 

[Slidey]

Yeah, of course Brad. We're the ones in the wrong here. It's not like you're unreasonably trying to convince us that because we're atheist, morality doesn't exist or anything.

If you were looking for a philosophical debate on the nature of morality, you really missed the mark, because you come accross as trying to dismiss secular morality to people who don't want to discuss it with you. Like a Mormon putting his foot in the doorway and preaching to you about the lord and how we're all sinners, then getting offended when he's told to fuck off.

And you told us when you first started posting in the god thread that you believed in creationism and felt evolution was false.

Also, you keep misusing philosophical terminology, using all sorts of straw men, and conducting logical fallacies without even blinking an eye. If you really care about this issue, go read some Nietzsche, Plato, Socrates, borrow some books on nihilism and objectivism, pick up some Kant or Descartes.

 

[Kwayera]

Ahh, nope. I'm trying to show that morality doesn't have as much meaning under atheism as what most proclaim it to.

Either way, I think I give up now. It seems like we are just going in circles, or we're arguing about something we already agree on. It seems to be that most people have come to accept the system of morality they propose.

Honestly, the main reason I cannot handle discussions on this forum is the way I am just constantly talked down to and insulted. I purposely make a point of always trying to be reasonable and honest with everyone on these forums, but you guys are just so rude - I don't get it.

But - you just did the same thing, albeit unintentionally. Our issue with you is that you honestly believe that atheists are morally inferior to you, without any basis whatsoever.

Do you understand why we respond in the negative?

 

[lolokay]

ehh unless I've missed something it seems that you guys are basically arguing aboutwhat 'moral' means... not too sure what you're hoping to achieve there

It seems like we are just going in circles, or we're arguing about something we already agree on.

does seem that way