Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Greater Adamsia]

I mean, saying that you stand for "nothing" is better than saying that you stand for "self-interest", at least when analyzing rhetoric and such. Do you catch my drift? Like, it's technically incorrect, but it sounds better.

Yes. However, he means that I stand for nothing of value-although value is inherently subjective, all things we value go back to self interest in the end.

I mean, your statement makes sense... given a certain set of epistemic and metaphysical assumptions, namely radical empiricism and metaphysical nihilism, not shared by most in this thread. Heck, I disagree with your epistemic and metaphysical postulates, I'm merely pointing this out out of courtesy, since I foresee... well, another argument about epistemology and metaphysics occurring soon, and I wish for you (as much as I find your epistemology and metaphysics to be, well, wrong) to be at least somewhat prepared. However, it's likely that I won't be able to participate, since one of my neighbors passed away due to cancer a few days ago and the viewing is being held tonight, which I shall be attending. I shall see y'all later, I guess?

[Jolthig]

Where do you all believe morality is derived from, it anywhere?

Nowhere.

Can you explain?

[Kowani]

Yes. However, he means that I stand for nothing of value-although value is inherently subjective, all things we value go back to self interest in the end.

I mean, your statement makes sense... given a certain set of epistemic and metaphysical assumptions, namely radical empiricism and metaphysical nihilism, not shared by most in this thread.

Even if one is to hold any other ethical position, actions are guided by self-interest. I admit it. Others do not. And if one is to have an honest discussion about morality, unless one wishes to delve into theology, one cannot invoke the divine.

Heck, I disagree with your epistemic and metaphysical postulates, I'm merely pointing this out out of courtesy, since I foresee... well, another argument about epistemology and metaphysics occurring soon, and I wish for you (as much as I find your epistemology and metaphysics to be, well, wrong) to be at least somewhat prepared.

It is the pursuit of logic that drives my system, a simple question.

However, it's likely that I won't be able to participate, since one of my neighbors passed away due to cancer a few days ago and the viewing is being held tonight, which I shall be attending. I shall see y'all later, I guess?

Pity.

[Kowani]

Nowhere.

Can you explain?

Hm. One’s individual morals are drawn from multiple sources-one’s experiences, their culture, and the like. However,he said all morality, which is a radically different issue.

[North German Realm]

Nowhere.

Can you explain?

I think it just means that morality as an all-encompassing concept doesn't originate from anywhere. That said, I do disagree with that view. Morals originate from collectives ("Societies", but not necessarily societies either)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Where do you all believe morality is derived from, it anywhere?

Allah SWT

[Jolthig]

Where do you all believe morality is derived from, it anywhere?

Allah SWT

[Al Mumtahanah]

Trinitarian theology can do that.

I highly doubt trinitarianism causes violence.

Most Christian sectarian violence prior to the Reformatiom related to Trinitarian theology.

[Greater Adamsia]

I mean, your statement makes sense... given a certain set of epistemic and metaphysical assumptions, namely radical empiricism and metaphysical nihilism, not shared by most in this thread.

Even if one is to hold any other ethical position, actions are guided by self-interest. I admit it. Others do not. And if one is to have an honest discussion about morality, unless one wishes to delve into theology, one cannot invoke the divine.

Heck, I disagree with your epistemic and metaphysical postulates, I'm merely pointing this out out of courtesy, since I foresee... well, another argument about epistemology and metaphysics occurring soon, and I wish for you (as much as I find your epistemology and metaphysics to be, well, wrong) to be at least somewhat prepared.

It is the pursuit of logic that drives my system, a simple question.

However, it's likely that I won't be able to participate, since one of my neighbors passed away due to cancer a few days ago and the viewing is being held tonight, which I shall be attending. I shall see y'all later, I guess?

Pity.

I have returned, and I must admit that I'm surprised that discussion hasn't advanced as quickly as I was expecting.

Anyway, I dispute your assertion of "pure logic", my foremost objection stemming from terminology. If you were basing your epistemology on "pure logic" you'd be a rationalist, and you are most certainly an empiricist, to such a degree that I'm willing to call you a positivist. Shall I continue or do any of you (not just Kowani) have questions thus far?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I highly doubt trinitarianism causes violence.

Most Christian sectarian violence prior to the Reformatiom related to Trinitarian theology.

Correlation =/= causation

[Jolthig]

Can you explain?

Hm. One’s individual morals are drawn from multiple sources-one’s experiences, their culture, and the like. However,he said all morality, which is a radically different issue.

Ah, okay.

Can you explain?

I think it just means that morality as an all-encompassing concept doesn't originate from anywhere. That said, I do disagree with that view. Morals originate from collectives ("Societies", but not necessarily societies either)

What do you mean?

[Kowani]

Even if one is to hold any other ethical position, actions are guided by self-interest. I admit it. Others do not. And if one is to have an honest discussion about morality, unless one wishes to delve into theology, one cannot invoke the divine.
It is the pursuit of logic that drives my system, a simple question.

Pity.

I have returned, and I must admit that I'm surprised that discussion hasn't advanced as quickly as I was expecting.

The other side of Summer-things move slow.

Anyway, I dispute your assertion of "pure logic", my foremost objection stemming from terminology. If you were basing your epistemology on "pure logic" you'd be a rationalist, and you are most certainly an empiricist, to such a degree that I'm willing to call you a positivist. Shall I continue or do any of you (not just Kowani) have questions thus far?

Well. I utilize logic, but it must work in tandem with the senses, the two are not opposed to one another. Regardless of how much one attempts to rationalize that empty belly, it will remain so, and yet, once one reaches the quantum level, the senses become unreliable. It is not just one against the other, but rather, the juxtaposition of the two that is of importance. However, the senses cannot tell one whether something is right or wrong, and of those that do, they vary greatly by people and time. I speak here of empathy, and conscience. That is where logic rules.

[Hanafuridake]

Where do you all believe morality is derived from, it anywhere?

Human nature.

[Greater Cesnica]

Where do you all believe morality is derived from, it anywhere?

Human nature.

Morality is a concept created by intelligent human beings to bring moderation into the actions of people. It is a thin threshold that separates the vile, cruel, evil, and cold-hearted souls from those who would participate in a system of relative calm and order.

[Jolthig]

https://youtu.be/3fghJ1c02KQ

What an insane battle. The Japanese are the biggest trolls when it comes to war. Especially here in Iwo Jima.

[Greater Cesnica]

https://youtu.be/3fghJ1c02KQ

What an insane battle. The Japanese are the biggest trolls when it comes to war. Especially here in Iwo Jima.

The Japanese: Omae wa mou shindeiru

Americans: NANI!?!?

Also the Americans: 6,821 killed.

[Hanafuridake]

Human nature.

Morality is a concept created by intelligent human beings to bring moderation into the actions of people. It is a thin threshold that separates the vile, cruel, evil, and cold-hearted souls from those who would participate in a system of relative calm and order.

Unintelligent, even people with intellectual disabilities, exhibit emotions such as altruism, love, and even grief while many intelligent people believe that their superior academic skills make it acceptable for them to manipulate or harm others. Moral principles are something which are immanent in people, the ethical systems can't exist otherwise.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

From your point of view, nothing has meaning except the categorical rejection of any valid logic that could possibly condemn gay sex.

First you'll have to show me valid logic that can be used to condemn gay sex, and then see if I reject it. I haven't seen logic used to condemn homosexuality that can't also be used to condemn either sex for pleasure, marriage between atheists, straight anal sex, or sex where one or more of the participants are infertile.

Scripture was also written across multiple time periods in cultures wildly different to our own. Some portions of the Bible are being poetic or allegorical. We don't deny the divine inspiration of the Bible, such an opinion would be profoundly wrong, but we do deny that scripture must be taken at face value at all times under our modern interpretation.

How do we determine which passages are literal, and which parts are merely poetic?

Broadly speaking, they've been saying that a lack of firm doctrine, the prevalence and popularisation of "alternative interpretations" on almost every issue, results in the cohesion of the religion being lost and its social influence declining until it's less of a "faith" and more of a hollowed-out marketplace where every individual "spiritual shopper" gets to pick off the shelf whatever is most convenient for them.

The firm doctrine is in the source material, or at least it should be. If a holy book spawns a massive amount of wildly different interpretations, it's kind of the holy book's fault for not conveying its meaning clearly enough. Even then, while the Bible has plenty of ambiguous parts, it's also got plenty of unambiguous parts. Even then, even then, I don't consider a hollowed-out spiritual marketplace to be that bad of a thing. An individuals spirituality should reflect their beliefs, not an orthodoxy, in my opinion.

There's very little in the way of plain meaning in the Bible, almost everything has multiple meanings embedded in it. Reading a translated document pieced together from multiple different sources over the course of hundreds of years may be more complicated than reading a novel.

I don't view that as a positive thing for the Bible. For it to have so many wildly different interpretations makes me think it wasn't really God breathed, because surely any God that wanted to get in touch with humanity would make their meaning more clear. Even if I did try to believe it, there'd be no guarantee I'd be following the right interpretation of the Bible, so the whole thing seems unappealing.

Where do you all believe morality is derived from, it anywhere?

I believe that while morality is technically opinion, there are many things which form the basis of a morality on which most of us can agree, for example "humans life is valuable" while an opinion, it's an opinion most people agree on, and it can form the basis for a large number of moral principles.

[Purpelia]

First you'll have to show me valid logic that can be used to condemn gay sex, and then see if I reject it. I haven't seen logic used to condemn homosexuality that can't also be used to condemn either sex for pleasure, marriage between atheists, straight anal sex, or sex where one or more of the participants are infertile.

Cheap shot: If you live in a society that generally disproves of the behavior than condemning it is beneficial to social cohesion and not doing so leads to division, conflict and weakening of the group as a whole.
And yes, this can apply to literally anything that goes against the norm. Ergo cheap shot. But it is a valid logical argument to make.

I believe that while morality is technically opinion, there are many things which form the basis of a morality on which most of us can agree, for example "humans life is valuable" while an opinion, it's an opinion most people agree on, and it can form the basis for a large number of moral principles.

Every time I hear the words moral principle I cringe. The only things these are good for is as an excuse to pretend your opinion is fact so that you can inflict it on others as such for your own personal benefit.

Morality is nothing more than group consensus. It changes with the group, outside conditions and time. To treat it as anything but that is to make it into a sacred cow to which you than proceed to make sacrifices of human blood.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Cheap shot: If you live in a society that generally disproves of the behavior than condemning it is beneficial to social cohesion and not doing so leads to division, conflict and weakening of the group as a whole.
And yes, this can apply to literally anything that goes against the norm. Ergo cheap shot. But it is a valid logical argument to make.

It just seems like an appeal to popularity or appeal to society to me, not really a valid logical argument unless you're very pragmatic.

Every time I hear the words moral principle I cringe. The only things these are good for is as an excuse to pretend your opinion is fact so that you can inflict it on others as such for your own personal benefit.

Morality is nothing more than group consensus. It changes with the group, outside conditions and time. To treat it as anything but that is to make it into a sacred cow to which you than proceed to make sacrifices of human blood.

I don't see how the phrase "moral principle" is any worse than the word "principle" on its own. Which is just a set of rules you set for yourself in order the live the way that you feel is right.

If morality was nothing more than consensus, there would not be competing moral systems, there would only be one moral system.

[Hakons]

Where do you all believe morality is derived from, it anywhere?

Nowhere.

This is... exactly my point. No direction. No morality. No point. A very sorry existence, and one that needn't be so aimless.

Of all the objects in this world, and all the animals in this creation, we have been given intellect and soul to go beyond what is common to beasts. A rabbit can observe well enough, but it cannot rationalize. A fox can hunt, but it doesn't know why it hunts or if killing is right or wrong. You are different. You have intellect, a rational mind, a soul. You can observe and take action, but you can also rationalize, make abstraction, and tell what is right. It's time you use your given intellect and do a bit more than observing things and not making commitments. There is meaning, there is morality, and you don't die for nothing. Have a bit of imagination, and the world will be opened onto you.

[Hakons]

How do we determine which passages are literal, and which parts are merely poetic?

The traditional approach has been to contemplate both. A passage can be understood to be litteral, allegorical, or prophetic. In terms of picking which inteprtation, we defer to the historical interpretation given by the saints and the Church. Often times the different approaches will impart the same meaning.

[Hanafuridake]

Nowhere.

This is... exactly my point. No direction. No morality. No point. A very sorry existence, and one that needn't be so aimless.

Of all the objects in this world, and all the animals in this creation, we have been given intellect and soul to go beyond what is common to beasts. A rabbit can observe well enough, but it cannot rationalize. A fox can hunt, but it doesn't know why it hunts or if killing is right or wrong. You are different. You have intellect, a rational mind, a soul. You can observe and take action, but you can also rationalize, make abstraction, and tell what is right. It's time you use your given intellect and do a bit more than observing things and not making commitments. There is meaning, there is morality, and you don't die for nothing. Have a bit of imagination, and the world will be opened onto you.

As much as I don't want to seem to defend Kowani's worldview (because it's really dumb and untenable) I feel like you're projecting conclusions and other concepts on their worldview which aren't there. Kowani doesn't believe in a soul, and sees intellect as nothing more than a psychological function which has thrived because of natural selection. This isn't really that depressing or shows that Kowani doesn't have imagination (as though imagination is an acceptable argument for supposedly objective entities like souls).

Personally I would be more depressed if Christianity turned out to be true than atheism. A lot of people I love would suffer in eternal torment because they weren't believers, I would be trapped in a one-sided afterlife for all eternity with no room for change, and perhaps most strikingly to the imagination argument, this elaborate cosmos with one hundred billion galaxies and other wondrous phenomenon only exists because God wants people to make a simple decision.

[Greater Adamsia]

My original post has been deleted, due to not being as in-depth as I'd like. It was originally a somewhat humorous-in-tone critique of Kowani's worldview, but because of my family's Independence Day party preparations, I lack the time to do it properly.

[Novus America]

https://youtu.be/3fghJ1c02KQ

What an insane battle. The Japanese are the biggest trolls when it comes to war. Especially here in Iwo Jima.

Especially as the war was already lost. The were quite willing to knowingly slaughter their own troops and people for no good military purpose.

But that is how they were. They are different now.
Though as they have not fought since it is hard to tell how the will fight.