Basic E&M question

[Ana the Ist]

Want to share?

Sure, without going into a crazy amount of detail, there was a stalking case which comes to mind. It was a young man stalking a young woman...harassing her, threatening her life, breaking into her home....constant surveillance...awful stuff.

She ends up moving back in with her parents, changing almost everything about her life to get away from this guy. Her and her family had gone to police multiple times...but beyond a restraining order and a cruiser driving by daily, there wasn't a lot they could do or prove.

They were at the point where they basically had to hope they were ready for when this guy attacked so they could legally defend themselves. Of course, they weren't, and eventually he kidnapped and killed her.

So, basically, after exhausting all other possible options....if her father had decided to simply go out to his car one of the times he was sitting on the street watching them, and shot this guy in the head, I'd be morally satisfied that he had done the right thing.

Legally though, he would certainly be charged with murder.

My problem: I asked you what you thought the baby's opinion of getting killed might be, and instead of answering that directly, you responded like "well I'm sure he would listen to reason if I just explained all the facts, etc.". So I assume you already agree that the baby wouldn't care for the idea of being killed, since your first instinct seems to be giving him a sales pitch on why it's necessary.

If we remove all context and understanding from the situation...whether it's a person being killed in self-defense, wartime, a criminal execution, or euthanizing a terminal cancer patient, or killing an unborn child....sure, I guess everyone would object.

No offense, but that's a rather stupid question...and it doesn't really have any bearing on morality in real life.

Just that everyone knows wrong, whether they are the victim or the perpetrator.

Everyone has a concept of "wrong"...but no two people have the same concept nor agree on those concepts.

 

[quatona]

Okay, but I mean it to be a debate thread.

Obviously.
Unfortunately for you, though, it takes not only two to tango, but also to debate.

Who are you to say it shouldn't be?

Maybe that´s what you heard. It isn´t what I said.
I asked you kindly not to do it. It´s up to you how to deal with that request, and it´s up to me how to deal with the way you deal with it.

Do you remember your "Private Property" thread?

Faintly. I´m old.

Are you going to say this thread is "yours"?

No, I haven´t said it, don´t say it and won´t say it - simply because that´s not how I feel about it. (Since you mentioned the "Property"-thread: I guess you already knew that from that thread.)

Correct. I'd also say that "I didn't feel invited" is likewise a statement which can only be made on my terms.

Yeah, I notice that you can´t help superimposing your moral ideas upon my statements (which is completely understandable and happens all the time when people talk), and that you are trying to show me that this is what I mean by them (which is understandable, too, but quite a bit frustrating for me).

Do you think people should be nice and polite to each other?

No, I don´t. (On a sidenote: Look, you did it again. ).

What are your terms? (I'm sure you won't answer, but I'm sitting here typing, might as well ask.)

I was going to respond, but upon reading the parenthesis I didn´t feel like it anymore...

But what if I want to derail it?

Then you derail it, obviously.

We have competing "wants", and there's no external basis to decide that one is superior to the other,

Well, there is an external instance that has the power to delete posts that are against the rules they made for what they consider "their" forum: The administrators. Personally, I hesitate to equate such power with superiority, though.

so I can derail all I want, yes? No?

Yes, obviously you can (again: unless an instance that has the power decides to keep you from doing it) - even if there were an "external standard".
I answered this question already in a previous post.

But maybe you use "can" in a very special meaning?

We'll never know if it's futile if you never try.

I´m trying it all the time with you - you just don´t recognize it. Because you keep interpreting what I say on your terms, and this can´t work. A common problem when thoughts are exchanged across thought systems, btw.

 

[Divide]

So you believe heaven is basically empty? Except for babies (who can't speak so don't lie) or those with serious mental disorders (which prevent them from speaking)?

Of course not. Why would heaven be empty. They are washed in the blood of Jesus and all who are there are clean. My point is, us Christians (and unbelievers) should try to walk with honor and to be a better person today than we were yesterday. As Christians, we're supposed to obey. To walk the walk instead of just talk the talk. I don't know what it is, but it seems like a lot of Christians don't want to try to be better, they admit defeat and wont try. It's as if they believe that...one day, Jesus will show up and change me into a perfect person and then all will be all white picket fence tra-la-la... and that's just not how it is. Scripture says be ye holy, just as I am holy. That's for now, not for some ethereal far off Narnia in the future sometime. It's not coveting your neighbors wife, it's not getting revenge for someone who ripped you off, it's not lying, even little white lies. It is making the effort now.

We're only human so will fail, but, we get back up again, turn back to God and repent and keep on keeping on. It's walking with honor, which is something one doesn't even have to be religious, to do.

In the heart, the iniquity which holds that a little white lie is ok, is the same iniquity that makes men kill people. Iniquity is iniquity.

 

[Allandavid]

Again, you want me "to provide an application of justice". What does that even mean? I told you the decision was unjust. I don't know what else you want.

Not true. This is the first time you have used either 'just' or 'unjust' in your comment. Yet you claim it is such a simple concept to apply.

And...which decision was "unjust"...the one outlawing abortion, or the one reversing that law...?

 

[Chesterton]

Sure, without going into a crazy amount of detail, there was a stalking case which comes to mind. It was a young man stalking a young woman...harassing her, threatening her life, breaking into her home....constant surveillance...awful stuff.

Awful? Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

She ends up moving back in with her parents, changing almost everything about her life to get away from this guy. Her and her family had gone to police multiple times...but beyond a restraining order and a cruiser driving by daily, there wasn't a lot they could do or prove.

They were at the point where they basically had to hope they were ready for when this guy attacked so they could legally defend themselves. Of course, they weren't, and eventually he kidnapped and killed her.

So, basically, after exhausting all other possible options....if her father had decided to simply go out to his car one of the times he was sitting on the street watching them, and shot this guy in the head, I'd be morally satisfied that he had done the right thing.

Legally though, he would certainly be charged with murder.

I'm morally satisfied that the kidnapper/murderer did the right thing. Do you think my "opinion" could be right or wrong, or is it just like choosing a milkshake flavor?

But seriously, morality is almost always situational. If I tell you I shoved a little old lady to the ground, you'd say I was a horrible person. If I said I shoved her out of the way of an oncoming bus and saved her life, you might say I'm a hero. Either way, I shoved an old lady. What doesn't change is that we always judge actions (or inactions) by a standard of right and wrong which varies very little. Everything has to be justified.

If we remove all context and understanding from the situation...whether it's a person being killed in self-defense, wartime, a criminal execution, or euthanizing a terminal cancer patient, or killing an unborn child....sure, I guess everyone would object.

No offense, but that's a rather stupid question...and it doesn't really have any bearing on morality in real life.

You're the one who brought up abortion. It very much has bearing in real life, people are murdered all the time. But we could use a thousand other examples of immorality, like theft, or common rudeness, whatever. It's always a breach of justice to a greater or lesser degree.

Everyone has a concept of "wrong"...but no two people have the same concept nor agree on those concepts.

So, the kidnapper/murderer in your story above...based on the details you gave do you think there are lots of people who would think he did the right thing?

Obviously.
Unfortunately for you, though, it takes not only two to tango, but also to debate.

Maybe that´s what you heard. It isn´t what I said.
I asked you kindly not to do it. It´s up to you how to deal with that request, and it´s up to me how to deal with the way you deal with it.

Faintly. I´m old.

No, I haven´t said it, don´t say it and won´t say it - simply because that´s not how I feel about it. (Since you mentioned the "Property"-thread: I guess you already knew that from that thread.)




Yeah, I notice that you can´t help superimposing your moral ideas upon my statements (which is completely understandable and happens all the time when people talk), and that you are trying to show me that this is what I mean by them (which is understandable, too, but quite a bit frustrating for me).

No, I don´t. (On a sidenote: Look, you did it again. ).



I was going to respond, but upon reading the parenthesis I didn´t feel like it anymore...



Then you derail it, obviously.

Well, there is an external instance that has the power to delete posts that are against the rules they made for what they consider "their" forum: The administrators. Personally, I hesitate to equate such power with superiority, though.

Yes, obviously you can (again: unless an instance that has the power decides to keep you from doing it) - even if there were an "external standard".
I answered this question already in a previous post.

But maybe you use "can" in a very special meaning?



I´m trying it all the time with you - you just don´t recognize it. Because you keep interpreting what I say on your terms, and this can´t work. A common problem when thoughts are exchanged across thought systems, btw.

Okay, well I'm feeling a bit uninvited myself. I would love to keep pestering you, in fact I'd love to go to your house and smash your favorite guitar for the fun of it, in hopes that my moral concept might become a bit clearer to you, but lucky for both of us that philosophy experiment is not feasible. Take care.

 

[quatona]

Okay, well I'm feeling a bit uninvited myself.

What would it need for you to feel invited?

I would love to keep pestering you, in fact I'd love to go to your house and smash your favorite guitar for the fun of it, in hopes that my moral concept might become a bit clearer to you,

I think your moral concept is pretty clear to me.
Seems to be more about demonstrating to me that I won´t be able to handle that without resorting to claiming my feelings to be objective.

but lucky for both of us that philosophy experiment is not feasible.

I can give you my address. I don´t have the money to pay you the trip, though.
You might learn something new.
[On another note, I have no doubt that you can intentionally annoy people - and that includes me - to a degree that they will say something stupid. I wouldn´t call that a philosophy experiment exactly, though. Exploiting the deranged emotional state of a person like that (and concluding that this results in true/honest statements) resembles more like the erroneous concept behind torture, to me.]

 

[Chesterton]

What would it need for you to feel invited?

Well it's just that you made a couple of comments that I was derailing, and that the conversation was a little frustrating. I don't actually want to be a pest, in spite of what I said above.

I think your moral concept is pretty clear to me.
Seems to be more about demonstrating to me that I won´t be able to handle that without resorting to claiming my feelings to be objective.

Yes, but I think it's for the good. All these things atheists are forced to say - that we are not conscious, we have no free will, there is no right and wrong, it all denies everything it has always meant to be human. It's not healthy to deny reality, and it can't lead to anything good over time. I hear someone insult a woman or a minority and they say it's "dehumanizing". No, it's just an insult. But atheism is the insult which is the true dehumanization.

I can give you my address. I don´t have the money to pay you the trip, though.
You might learn something new.
[On another note, I have no doubt that you can intentionally annoy people - and that includes me - to a degree that they will say something stupid. I wouldn´t call that a philosophy experiment exactly, though. Exploiting the deranged emotional state of a person like that (and concluding that this results in true/honest statements) resembles more like the erroneous concept behind torture, to me.]

I'd better not come. If the experiment is a success, you might beat me up.

 

[quatona]

Well it's just that you made a couple of comments that I was derailing, and that the conversation was a little frustrating. I don't actually want to be a pest, in spite of what I said above.

You forgot to answer the question (which might have actually helped with your problem).
But maybe you are quite comfortable with your problem?

Yes, but I think it's for the good. All these things atheists are forced to say - that we are not conscious, we have no free will, there is no right and wrong, it all denies everything it has always meant to be human. It's not healthy to deny reality, and it can't lead to anything good over time. I hear someone insult a woman or a minority and they say it's "dehumanizing". No, it's just an insult. But atheism is the insult which is the true dehumanization.

Yeah, that view of yours explains a lot to me. I like it better when you tell me about your feelings that bluntly than when you try to rationalize them into weird arguments. Thanks for being direct and honest! Your really don´t like atheism, eh? I´m gonna keep that this self-disclosure of yours in mind for further instances where I don´t know why you react the way you do.
(You, however, lost me already at "atheists...forced to say".)

I'd better not come. If the experiment is a success, you might beat me up.

I´m not sure how me beating you up would successfully demonstrate the idea that there is (or that I belieive in - or whatever it is that you want to prove) a moral "right or wrong".
Anyway, that must be a rough place to be in for you - with creating for yourself the two options of either being "dehumanized/insulted" or being beat up.
I understand, though, that you prefer to be "dehumanized/insulted" the way I "dehumanize/insulted" you (by merely disagreeing with your views) over being bet up.
Then again: Intentionally annoying people (for the greater "good") until they beat you up - wouldn´t that possibly gain you some sort of martyr-status?

 

[Chesterton]

You forgot to answer the question (which might have actually helped with your problem).
But maybe you are quite comfortable with your problem?

What question? About being invited? And what problem are you talking about?

Yeah, that view of yours explains a lot to me. I like it better when you tell me about your feelings that bluntly than when you try to rationalize them into weird arguments. Thanks for being direct and honest! Your really don´t like atheism, eh? I´m gonna keep that this self-disclosure of yours in mind for further instances where I don´t know why you react the way you do.

You're probably right about that. I should be more direct I guess.

I think atheism's wrong, but it's not so much that I don't like it. It has some attractive features, like no moral accountability to anyone other than the police and the wife, and neither of them is omniscient. Going to sleep forever's not so bad. I'm lazy so I'm rather fond of sleeping. I especially like the Bhuddist idea of becoming one with everything. Not sure if it actually happens though. I know a Bhuddist monk who owns a pizza shop. I went in and asked him if he could make me one with everthing, but he just gave me a pizza.

(You, however, lost me already at "atheists...forced to say".)

They're forced by the arbitrary rule they assert - materialism. Like with free will for example, they're smart enough to figure out you can't get it from matter, so what do they have to do? They have to deny it exists, say it's an illusion.

I´m not sure how me beating you up would successfully demonstrate the idea that there is (or that I belieive in - or whatever it is that you want to prove) a moral "right or wrong".
Anyway, that must be a rough place to be in for you - with creating for yourself the two options of either being "dehumanized/insulted" or being beat up.
I understand, though, that you prefer to be "dehumanized/insulted" the way I "dehumanize/insulted" you (by merely disagreeing with your views) over being bet up.

I'm not quite following you here.

Then again: Intentionally annoying people (for the greater "good") until they beat you up - wouldn´t that possibly gain you some sort of martyr-status?

Yeah maybe I could become the patron saint of guitar smashers, unless Pete Townshend already has the position.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is anybody else here willing to explain to me from scratch what they mean when they say "morally right or wrong (to me)"?

I didn't read every post, so I don't know if it's been mentioned, but many of those who ask this question probably have an underlying belief in absolutes.

I could almost get the impression you're a primitive Amazonian jungle dweller whose last exposure to new human thought was around 10,000 B.C. Are you trying to be Socratic or what?

Uh oh. Now you did it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I suppose you could say that I would know my opinion on the matter. It would be similar to the way I know I like vanilla milkshakes, or that I know it's a pretty day outside.

This is far apart from the way I know 2+2=4.

I prefer chocolate to vanilla, but how do you know that is what you like?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Awful? Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Ok.

I'm morally satisfied that the kidnapper/murderer did the right thing. Do you think my "opinion" could be right or wrong, or is it just like choosing a milkshake flavor?

I disagree with your opinion, if that's what you're asking.

But seriously, morality is almost always situational. If I tell you I shoved a little old lady to the ground, you'd say I was a horrible person. If I said I shoved her out of the way of an oncoming bus and saved her life, you might say I'm a hero. Either way, I shoved an old lady. What doesn't change is that we always judge actions (or inactions) by a standard of right and wrong which varies very little. Everything has to be justified.

It's our own standard though...and that standard changes.

You're the one who brought up abortion. It very much has bearing in real life, people are murdered all the time.

I brought it up because it's a good example...you tried to remove the circumstances/situation. I pointed out that if we remove the circumstances then the answer to "do you want to be killed?" is almost always no. Remember just above where you said that morality is situational?

But we could use a thousand other examples of immorality, like theft, or common rudeness, whatever. It's always a breach of justice to a greater or lesser degree.


So, the kidnapper/murderer in your story above...based on the details you gave do you think there are lots of people who would think he did the right thing?

Apparently you do...so that's a silly question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I prefer chocolate to vanilla, but how do you know that is what you like?

That particular opinion has a lot to do with biology...and how my tastebuds respond to vanilla. Is that what you'd like to discuss?

 

[Resha Caner]

That particular opinion has a lot to do with biology...and how my tastebuds respond to vanilla. Is that what you'd like to discuss?

Sure. Why do yours respond to vanilla and mine to chocolate?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. Why do yours respond to vanilla and mine to chocolate?

Here's a good place to start...

The Science Behind How We Taste

If you need me to summarize any sections for you, let me know.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sure. Why do yours respond to vanilla and mine to chocolate?

Surely both of you have tastebuds that respond to both stimuli. The question about how much you like one versus the other is a subjective experience that you each experience directly.

 

[Chesterton]

I disagree with your opinion, if that's what you're asking.

No, not what I'm asking, but anyway, why do you disagree with my opnion?

It's our own standard though...and that standard changes.

By "our" you mean humans I guess? Yes, I already conceded that. If there are space aliens who have different standards, who think it's noble to hurt weaker people for no reason, we can talk about them when we find them.

I brought it up because it's a good example...you tried to remove the circumstances/situation. I pointed out that if we remove the circumstances then the answer to "do you want to be killed?" is almost always no. Remember just above where you said that morality is situational?

The answer is no regardless of circumstances. But then, you're a guy who says he's never knowingly done anything wrong, so maybe you're a super saint who doesn't mind dying for someone else's convenience. I'm probably not even worthy to be chatting with you.

Apparently you do...so that's a silly question.

Why's it silly?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, not what I'm asking, but anyway, why do you disagree with my opnion?

Because I have my own opinions? You do understand how opinions work, don't you?

By "our" you mean humans I guess?

Each individual human has their own standards, yes.

The answer is no regardless of circumstances.

No...no it isn't. If we're talking about, for example, someone dying of a terminal illness or someone suffering from an extremely painful condition, I think there's lots of people who would choose death.

But then, you're a guy who says he's never knowingly done anything wrong, so maybe you're a super saint who doesn't mind dying for someone else's convenience. I'm probably not even worthy to be chatting with you.

Why's it silly?

Because you asked me if I thought anyone would agree with the murderer...and you claimed you did. So regardless of my speculations...you've proven that all sorts of moral views exist.

 

[Chesterton]

Because I have my own opinions? You do understand how opinions work, don't you?

No I don't, and it'd be great if you could explain how opinions work, but first could you answer the question you avoided?

Each individual human has their own standards, yes.

So you do know people who think pushing little old ladies for no reason is noble?

No...no it isn't. If we're talking about, for example, someone dying of a terminal illness or someone suffering from an extremely painful condition, I think there's lots of people who would choose death.

Where'd that goalpost go? We were talking about abortion, where the person doesn't get to choose.

Because you asked me if I thought anyone would agree with the murderer...and you claimed you did. So regardless of my speculations...you've proven that all sorts of moral views exist.

You understand how arguendo works, don't you?

 

[quatona]

I didn't read every post, so I don't know if it's been mentioned, but many of those who ask this question probably have an underlying belief in absolutes.
Uh oh. Now you did it.

Yes, there´s no shortage of people here who try to tell me what I believe.