I don't believe in right and wrong.

[Dragar]

I think you were getting your butt kicked, thats why you sidestepped by proposing the discontinuity of self - comes in handy when losing a debate .. oops that was the old self that lost right?

Well, you were the one who first brought up the notion of 'self'...

 

[Kris_J]

Well, you were the one who first brought up the notion of 'self'...

...What??? There is no such thing as Dragar 19 male UK?

Birthday:
9th November 1984 Blessings:
136 Country:
United Kingdom Current Activity:
surfing the web Occupation:
Student (Undergraduate, studying Physics with Theoretical Astrophysics) Origin of the Life View:
Atheistic Evolution

I guess that info/identity is a computer glitch. There is no identity if there is no self. I guess that info is irrelevant to a non-identity/self.

 

[Dragar]

...What??? There is no such thing as Dragar 19 male UK?

I guess that info/identity is a computer glitch. There is no identity if there is no self.

I take it you want to divert the discussion?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

"Dragar" is an umbrella term for many quite distinct facets.

 

[Kris_J]

I take it you want to divert the discussion?

You diverted it when you claimed there is no self. I am proving that there is - & that there is continuity between selves, as a 13yo, 3billion y.o. & a Dragar 3 posts later.

Shall we agree that there is a continuity of self now?

 

[Dragar]

You diverted it when you claimed there is no self. I am proving that there is - & that there is continuity between selves, as a 13yo, 3billion y.o. & a Dragar 3 posts later.

Well, shall we at least start a new thread?

 

[Kris_J]

Kris, you need to always ask 'better to who?

My 'ideas of right and wrong' now are better than 13 year old Dragar's views - to this Dragar. I rather imagine 13 year old Dragar would have considered his views better than the views of this Dragar, now.

Am I speaking to this same dragar? LoL! another day. Gotta go!!!! ciao!

when did I sink to speaking to someone who refers to themselves in 3rd person?

 

[Dragar]

Am I speaking to this same dragar? LoL! another day. Gotta go!!!! ciao!

Later.

 

[Western Deity]

Man, Dragar, you are way too polite.

 

[Dragar]

Man, Dragar, you are way too polite.

Probably.

I find it highly amusing that, despite saying "I think you were getting your butt kicked, thats why you sidestepped by proposing the discontinuity of self - comes in handy when losing a debate .. oops that was the old self that lost right?" all attempts to drag things back to the original topic were diverted.

 

[Western Deity]

I find it highly amusing that, despite saying "I think you were getting your butt kicked, thats why you sidestepped by proposing the discontinuity of self - comes in handy when losing a debate .. oops that was the old self that lost right?" all attempts to drag things back to the original topic were diverted.

Somebody else in your shoes wouldn't be that nice about it .

 

[Sanguine]

Probably.

I find it highly amusing that, despite saying "I think you were getting your butt kicked, thats why you sidestepped by proposing the discontinuity of self - comes in handy when losing a debate .. oops that was the old self that lost right?" all attempts to drag things back to the original topic were diverted.

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
-- Homer Simpson

 

[MoodyBlue]

Not in the sense most Christians mean, which is to say, I don't believe in objective right and objective wrong. I believe that people evaluate actions by various criteria, and that this evaluation is necessarily subjective.

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. I don't think that murder is just plain wrong. I think murder is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. (Both are wrong-to-me.)

I'm pretty liberal, but I don't know how you can define rape as anything other than "just plain wrong". And that ought to be the case for all people.

 

[Carico]

If morality is subjective, then of course, there is no wrong. Apparently people want to do whatever they want with no consequences . Well, sorry, there simply are consequences. No one is above reproach nor is anyone above God's laws. The more people try to be, the greater the punishment because they have ignored the warning signals to their own peril. Being under the delusion that we are are own gods has a heavy price because not only is it not the truth, but it is trying to defy the way the world is designed. "He who exalts himself will be humbled." Going against God's laws IS what causes the misery and suffering in the world!

 

[an7222]

If the universe has objective laws of physics, why there cannot be objective laws of morality?

 

[YWGWYS]

If the universe has objective laws of physics, why there cannot be objective laws of morality?

because laws of physics merely describe and explain what happens, and moral laws would postulate, what ought to be done.
you are trapped by a word with two meanings.

 

[an7222]

because laws of physics merely describe and explain what happens, and moral laws would postulate, what ought to be done.
you are trapped by a word with two meanings.

But suppose you did nothing yet, but will choose between to different actions. You can study before acting what's the most moral thing to do.

 

[YWGWYS]

But suppose you did nothing yet, but will choose between to different actions. You can study before acting what's the most moral thing to do.

sorry, i can´t follow.
if you drop a stone, it will most likely fall down. not because some book or theory says it (in fact it´s the other way round), but because it has happened ever and ever again. we call that gravity, we can explain it, everybody experiences it; there are no counter-examples. hence we agree to call that a law.
now, what was your point about the similarities of laws of physics and moral laws?

 

[Dragar]

I think an7222 is trying to say that maybe 'I consider X wrong' is a statement about X.

Which makes as much sense to me, as suggesting if saying 'I consider X beautiful' is a statement about X.

I consider certain pieces of art beautiful. But that's a statement about me, not the art.

 

[an7222]

sorry, i can´t follow.
if you drop a stone, it will most likely fall down. not because some book or theory says it (in fact it´s the other way round), but because it has happened ever and ever again. we call that gravity, we can explain it, everybody experiences it; there are no counter-examples. hence we agree to call that a law.
now, what was your point about the similarities of laws of physics and moral laws?

Just because we don't know the moral law, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. The physical laws always existed, but we discovered them recently.