CalledOutOne
The World Weary
Chris did you read what I said?
"Free will is kind of a misnomer"
"A bound will is a better term"
I deny libertarian free will.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do understand compatibility but it breaks the "laws" very of fate and free will. To have actually free will you must be able to do anything you please, to jump out of the bowl. And finally fate to work you must have an end point, you are fated to die in that bowl and have no way out of your own accord, there is no freedom in that, no matter what you do you will die in that bowl, you have no will, be it bound or free. Free will and fate cannot interact with each other having one will automatically void the other
I did hear you but it if are bound to do something then there is no will, no freedom of choice. I stated this in my post. There is either free will or fate, there can't be any mixing of the two. But I must say that libertarian free will makes the most sense.
You can do good if you are evil because you have the freedom of choice. Will has no bounds and just because you are inclined to do something does not mean you will. Hilter's will would be called evil by many but he still did things as did Stalin.
I don't think it is, but I think denying its possibility is close-minded.
Hilter brought Germany's economy back from the dead. Stalin put the first human is space.
What good does an evil person do?
There is no one who does good.
Their good is an illusion.
Even their good is only a result of selfishness.
I don't see how their good is an illusion. Hilter saved millions from starvion and homelessness. But Shane is right, morality is subjective.
If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become manmade objections. The question then becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him? What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you? Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?
There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality. "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a proposition is possible.
You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference. That is terribly inconsistent and irrational.
I teens must realize there responsibilities. They need to know that what is wrong and what is right for them. They need to participate in healthy activities. I thin that's the best strategy for teens to grow well and seek a charming personality.
I did hear you but it if are bound to do something then there is no will, no freedom of choice. I stated this in my post. There is either free will or fate, there can't be any mixing of the two. But I must say that libertarian free will makes the most sense.
If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like.
Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become manmade objections.
The question then becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society?
If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him?
What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you? Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?
There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality. "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a proposition is possible.
You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference. That is terribly inconsistent and irrational.
Honestly, this whole thread is easily answered in one simple statement, both sides.
If you believe in the Bible, follow the Bible. Namely, the Torah. It outlines pretty much every single possible scenario of sin, how to avoid it, and how to solve it. It defines sin, and gives us a general standing stone for what we need to know about the definition of sin. It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out to be honest... We make it harder than it is.
However, for Atheists and those who do not subscribe to the words written in the Scripitures, then things are a little more cloudy. Yes, you can define what is 'good' and 'bad' or 'right' and 'wrong' based on your moral compass. However, that compass can be skewed quite often, towards one extreme or the other. If you don't necessarily have a set of guidelines for what is right and what is wrong, then it is difficult to peg an individual as guilty of something. I mean, think about this James Holmes guy. He obviously was in the wrong when he murdered so many people (hits close to home because I know people that were in that theater room, it was 10 miles from my house). However, if you don't have a set group of rulings, statutes, and laws, how are you to convict someone if what's right to them is just okay? Sure, you can argue that if everyone thought that what Holmes did was okay, then he'd be let free. That is true. However, if that were the case, none of us would still be alive because we'd all be at each others' throats. Post-modernism sounds nice, in a sense. You know, I can understand that. However, at the end of the day, it's a utopian mindset, it doesn't exist in a fully-fleshed out system. If everyone was naturally good then it would be okay. However, by nature, man strives with man. We are not good, and it's obvious. If we were naturally good, then post-modernism would work perfectly because we would all generally adhere to the same ideas. But we don't.
That's the main problem I see with following a more cloud-based system of self-governing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?