Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[BigV]

Although I don't agree with USA attacking Iraq, as I understand it Iraq isn't claimed as USA territory.

You are right, in that Iraq isn't claimed as US territory. Officially. However, US presence remains in Iraq and the last time Iraqi government decided to sign oil agreements with non-Western nations, things turned very bad for them.

Russia claim the Crimea to now be Russian property.

That's true, however, remember that Crimea had a vote, first their parliament and then their people. Shouldn't the people of Crimea be able to decide for themselves if they want to be a part of Russia?

Besides, Crimea initially became a part of a Ukraine's territory since the 1950's. Nobody asked people of Crimea if they want to join the Ukrainian SSR. I thought the Western democracies welcome people's decision. But we are observing a strange phenomenon. The West is against the choice of the Crimeans!

I disagree with USA on many things, but we were talking about Russia.

I was just trying to paint a picture. It seems that we live in a world where some countries, like the US, can do whatever they wish, and the rule of law be damned. You want to attack a small nation? If you are the US, go ahead, and nobody will stop you. But if you are Russia, and you want to follow the decision of the people of Crimea, too bad for you.

 

[stevil]

That's true, however, remember that Crimea had a vote, first their parliament and then their people. Shouldn't the people of Crimea be able to decide for themselves if they want to be a part of Russia?

That's not how the world works.
Even states in USA cannot simply vote themselves out of USA.

The West is against the choice of the Crimeans!

This is a serious twist.
Actually, the West were against Russia taking Crimea by lethal force.

It seems that we live in a world where some countries, like the US, can do whatever they wish, and the rule of law be damned. You want to attack a small nation? If you are the US, go ahead, and nobody will stop you. But if you are Russia, and you want to follow the decision of the people of Crimea, too bad for you.

I come from a small country. We wouldn't be able to stop very many countries doing things.

 

[BigV]

That's not how the world works.
Even states in USA cannot simply vote themselves out of USA.

Well, funny thing is, Kosovo was able to secede from Serbia.

Kosovo's Declaration of Independence: Self-Determination, Secession and Recognition | ASIL

It seems there is a pattern that has been established. If a region wants to secede from Russia, it's decision to do so is perfectly legitimate and will be recognized by a wider international community. On the other hand, if a region wants to join Russia, then it's an outrage.

Please remember than even the Ukraine, at one point, seceded from the Soviet Union, which was basically a Russian domain. So, Ukraine's independence is fine and good, but when a region wants to secede from the Ukraine, well, now we have a huge problem?

This is a serious twist.
Actually, the West were against Russia taking Crimea by lethal force.

But Russia did not take Crimea by lethal force. People voted. First, their parliament and then their people.

I come from a small country. We wouldn't be able to stop very many countries doing things.

New Zealand belongs to the UK though, right? So you have more protections than India or Bangladesh had, even though those countries are larger. India was a colony of Great Britain, which is not the same status as that enjoyed by the Australia and/or New Zealand or even Canada, for that matter.

 

[durangodawood]

Because that's the very nature of subjectivity.

When I want to talk about certain aspects of morality that are subjective (which I dont deny at all), then I'll bring up examples where subjective opinion plays a large role.

But when I'm countering arguments that there's no objective basis for human morality, then I'll choose blunt and obvious counter examples like 'dont murder your neighbor'.

 

[stevil]

New Zealand belongs to the UK though, right? So you have more protections than India or Bangladesh had, even though those countries are larger. India was a colony of Great Britain, which is not the same status as that enjoyed by the Australia and/or New Zealand or even Canada, for that matter.

We do not belong to the UK. We are part of the commonwealth just like India

 

[stevil]

But Russia did not take Crimea by lethal force. People voted. First, their parliament and then their people.

Crimea - Wikipedia

In February 2014, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution that ousted the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, Russia annexed Crimea after a military intervention by pro-Russian separatists and Russian Armed Forces.[7]

A controversial Crimea-wide referendum, unconstitutional under the Ukrainian and Crimean constitutions,[8][9][10] was held on the issue of reunification with Russia; its official results showed majority support for reunification, however, the vote was boycotted by many loyal to Ukraine[11][12] and declared illegitimate by Western governments and the United Nations.

 

[Kylie]

When I want to talk about certain aspects of morality that are subjective (which I dont deny at all), then I'll bring up examples where subjective opinion plays a large role.

But when I'm countering arguments that there's no objective basis for human morality, then I'll choose blunt and obvious counter examples like 'dont murder your neighbor'.

The fact that just about everyone agrees with something doesn't mean it is objective.

 

[durangodawood]

The fact that just about everyone agrees with something doesn't mean it is objective.

No, not definitively. But this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, not definitively. But this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.

I disagree! Just because humans for the most part will agree on what is sweet vs bitter, or beautiful vs ugly, they will also usually agree on what is good vs bad. But this does not make any of those things objective.

 

[Kylie]

No, not definitively. But this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.

Not really.

I mean, as a social species, we do benefit from not having murderers. That can be shown. But for other species, murder is quite different. Look at lions - if a new male lion takes over a pride, then he kills the cubs so he can create his own offspring with the females. And the females certainly don't react the way a human woman would in that situation.

And even among Humans, there are plenty of people who'd be happy if certain criminals were murdered. "Oh, the child abuser was killed? I'll shed no tears." That kind of thing.

 

[durangodawood]

Not really.

I mean, as a social species, we do benefit from not having murderers. That can be shown. But for other species, murder is quite different. Look at lions - if a new male lion takes over a pride, then he kills the cubs so he can create his own offspring with the females. And the females certainly don't react the way a human woman would in that situation.

And even among Humans, there are plenty of people who'd be happy if certain criminals were murdered. "Oh, the child abuser was killed? I'll shed no tears." That kind of thing.

Wait... we were discussing human morality. Not lion or starfish morality.

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree! Just because humans for the most part will agree on what is sweet vs bitter, or beautiful vs ugly, they will also usually agree on what is good vs bad. But this does not make any of those things objective.

It indicates they are probably based on objective facts of human living.

I dont even want to go down the philosophical rabbit hole implied by "makes those things objective" whatever that means. I would not state my claim that way. Please dont re-state my claim some other way.

 

[stevil]

Not really.
I mean, as a social species, we do benefit from not having murderers. That can be shown.

Your point is very valid.

We don't need "God told us not to murder", or "God imprinted on our hearts not to murder"
"Except those that do murder which are the evidence for the fallen nature of human kind"

Actually we can use reason. As we are social animals, we live together in societies, and we want to live, we want our loved ones to live. It just makes plain sense to make killing each other illegal. We don't need to appeal to a higher power to justify us creating this law for our mutual benefit within this society that we choose to live in.

 

[Kylie]

Wait... we were discussing human morality. Not lion or starfish morality.

And my point stands. Just because most humans agree on some moral point does not mean that moral point is objectively true.

 

[Kylie]

Your point is very valid.

We don't need "God told us not to murder", or "God imprinted on our hearts not to murder"
"Except those that do murder which are the evidence for the fallen nature of human kind"

Actually we can use reason. As we are social animals, we live together in societies, and we want to live, we want our loved ones to live. It just makes plain sense to make killing each other illegal. We don't need to appeal to a higher power to justify us creating this law for our mutual benefit within this society that we choose to live in.

It's more than that, though. Killing isn't just harmful because we want our loved ones to live. Even if we didn't care about the welfare of others, it would still make sense for us to be against murder, for the simple fact that each of us benefits by having others around. Not that I'm suggesting that's the main reason, but it's still a reason we can't deny.

 

[Ken-1122]

It indicates they are probably based on objective facts of human living.

Objective facts of human living? What does that mean?

 

[stevil]

It's more than that, though. Killing isn't just harmful because we want our loved ones to live. Even if we didn't care about the welfare of others, it would still make sense for us to be against murder, for the simple fact that each of us benefits by having others around. Not that I'm suggesting that's the main reason, but it's still a reason we can't deny.

Yeah but,

If our reasoning was that we benefit from having more people around then,
We would be against abortion
We would be against contraception
We would be all for domestic purposes benefits (benefits for solo mums, the more babies the better)
We would be all for immigration, lots and lots of immigration
We would be against couples choosing to not have babies

Of course all these things are multifaceted and we would have pros and cons of all of them and so would need to decide one way or another.

But my point is, (for me) it isn't a numbers game. For me it comes down to the purpose of having a society and the purpose of having a governing body defining rules and safety nets for those in society.
The governing body define and enforce the laws, the restrictions and punishments on people within our society. Obviously those that are governed want to have freedoms, but they generally are willing to trade off some freedoms in order to have a safe, stable and thriving society to live in.
e.g. no killing of people, as that makes society not safe for us to live in. No warring with other societies as that paints a target on ourselves and reduces our chances of mutually beneficial trade and support.

Humans are intelligent enough to think through some basic rules and laws without having to appeal to an imagined "perfect" god dictating to us as if we have no clue ourselves how to behave in a mutually beneficial society.

 

[stevil]

Objective facts of human living? What does that mean?

You know, facts that are subjective to the human experience.

 

[Ken-1122]

You know, facts that are subjective to the human experience.

Subjective facts? Can you provide some examples of facts you find subjecrtive?

 

[stevil]

Subjective facts? Can you provide some examples of facts you find subjecrtive?

I was highlighting something that was very contradictory. You can't have something that is objective and yet only applies if the subject (observer) is humans.