September 11, 2001

[Gadarene]

Excuse me?

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is one of the inevitable results from holding strongly held, irrational beliefs without any evidence.

A bunch of people decided to kill themselves for a God they have no proof or justification to believe even exists.... Just to kill thousands of innocent people because they happen to believe in another concept of God they have no proof or justification to believe exists either.

It's absolute insanity, this is why rational, critical thinking should be taught to everyone.

 

[quatona]

These replies that we are observing here are so revealing about the current postmodern train of thought that it should be evident to all.

I´m sure the guys who carried out the attack were anything but "postmodern". Au contraire, they were from the "morals are objective, and god is the author of these objective morals" camp.

 

[Redac]

These replies that we are observing here are so revealing about the current postmodern train of thought that it should be evident to all.

To even insinuate that what happened on that fateful day was in any way justifiable and then to light heartedly speak about it in a trivial fashion is a testimony to the hardness of men's hearts.

Wow guys.... wow...

What standard are we using to evaluate whether it was justified? Ours? Theirs?

 

[Murmur]

Did you mean to suggest that you thought killing thousands of innocent people at random was the "right thing"? Or were you referring to them thinking they were doing the right thing?

A little bit of both, I suppose... The government didn't stop them when they got their information long before the attacks, and it makes sense that the hijackers thought they were doing the right thing because nobody felt like stopping them months before.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A little bit of both, I suppose... The government didn't stop them when they got their information long before the attacks, and it makes sense that the hijackers thought they were doing the right thing because nobody felt like stopping them months before.

The CIA gets hundreds, if not thousands of attack threats and reports of suspicious activity every week.

They likely didn't have time to fully investigate the data, or just wrote it off as nothing to worry about.

Obviously in retrospect they were wrong, however putting yourself in a pre-2001 state of mind, nobody could have thought anyone had a chance of launching that kind of attack.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What standard are we using to evaluate whether it was justified? Ours? Theirs?

Do you think that both standards are equally appropriate, with neither one being better in any way than the other?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MorkandMindy]

Obviously in retrospect they were wrong, however putting yourself in a pre-2001 state of mind, nobody could have thought anyone had a chance of launching that kind of attack.

They knew bin Laden was after the World Trade Towers.

They also thought he would get them using aircraft.

But they expected chartered planes loaded with explosives, so I guess they were taken by surprise.

 

[Redac]

Do you think that both standards are equally appropriate, with neither one being better in any way than the other?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm notables sure where I am meta-ethically, but my response was mostly addressed to the apparent incredulity at the idea that such an act can be justified. It can be justified, just depends on who you ask and what standard we are using.

 

[Dave Ellis]

They knew bin Laden was after the World Trade Towers.

They also thought he would get them using aircraft.

But they expected chartered planes loaded with explosives, so I guess they were taken by surprise.

So it shows their information was sketchy. That is just further evidence they didn't know exactly what was going on, even if they had bits of information.

I'm sure if they were aware that they were going to fly passenger airliners into the world trade center on the morning of September 11, they would have stopped them, and stopped them easily. Hell, I'm sure if they had any serious idea of what was going on and how imminent it was, they would have put an end to it. Instead, they got caught off guard because they didn't have the information.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is one of the inevitable results from holding strongly held, irrational beliefs without any evidence.

A bunch of people decided to kill themselves for a God they have no proof or justification to believe even exists.... Just to kill thousands of innocent people because they happen to believe in another concept of God they have no proof or justification to believe exists either.

Meanwhile another group with strongly held irrational beliefs supposedly dictated by gods can't even comprehend how someone could have different strongly held irrational beliefs supposedly dictated by gods.

Meanwhile those who understand that morality is subjective can at least try to understand what the hijackers' motivations were without being irrationally sucked into the "god says they're evil don't think about the bad men" black hole.

 

[Elioenai26]

Meanwhile another group with strongly held irrational beliefs supposedly dictated by gods can't even comprehend how someone could have different strongly held irrational beliefs supposedly dictated by gods.

Meanwhile those who understand that morality is subjective can at least try to understand what the hijackers' motivations were without being irrationally sucked into the "god says they're evil don't think about the bad men" black hole.

I doubt very seriously you would be speaking this way if your mother or father or wife or son or daughter or anyone you loved was a victim of these attacks. I doubt very seriously you would be so concerned about what their motives were.

Because you and I both know that what they did was inexcusable.

 

[SharonL]

This comes from a mindset taught very young and fear of their religion makes them do anything to kill infidels.

 

[EddyMabo]

I doubt very seriously you would be speaking this way if your mother or father or wife or son or daughter or anyone you loved was a victim of these attacks. I doubt very seriously you would be so concerned about what their motives were.

If someone you knew was murdered why would you not be concerned with the motives of the murderer?

Because you and I both know that what they did was inexcusable.

Yes, which says nothing about discussing motives.

 

[Gadarene]

I doubt very seriously you would be speaking this way if your mother or father or wife or son or daughter or anyone you loved was a victim of these attacks. I doubt very seriously you would be so concerned about what their motives were.

You almost make it sound like it's subjective.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Meanwhile those who understand that morality is subjective can at least try to understand what the hijackers' motivations were without being irrationally sucked into the "god says they're evil don't think about the bad men" black hole.

I'm curious. What would be the point of understanding their motives? What would knowledge of their motives yield?

It sounds like you are saying that subjective morality allows one to understand that people can have different values. But that isn't really under dispute. The objective moralist fully understands that people can have different values. He simply thinks that one ought not pursue some values.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

If someone you knew was murdered why would you not be concerned with the motives of the murderer?



Yes, which says nothing about discussing motives.

Quite simply because to murder someone is an irreversible act that terminates the life of an inviolable human. Whatever their motives might have been is quite immaterial to the point I was making.

 

[Elioenai26]

You almost make it sound like it's subjective.

This is quite immaterial to my point. You may ascribe whatever term you like. All im saying is that in the real world, when those we love are involved in morally reprehensible acts, we're not going to sit there and have a philosophical debate on whether the ones responsible were acting subjectively or objectively. We are going to care less about trying to rationalize it away in the hopes of defending our particular worldview.

But then again, who knows? Maybe some of you wouldn't really care. Maybe some of you wouldn't be upset. Maybe some of you would just say: " Well, everybody has to die sometime right?"

 

[Gadarene]

This is quite immaterial to my point. You may ascribe whatever term you like. All im saying is that in the real world, when those we love are involved in morally reprehensible acts, we're not going to sit there and have a philosophical debate on whether the ones responsible were acting subjectively or objectively. We are going to care less about trying to rationalize it away in the hopes of defending our particular worldview.

On the contrary, it's very advisable that those not directly/emotionally involved with an incident such as that do try and discuss the morality of what happened. They are better placed to do so rationally.

But then again, who knows? Maybe some of you wouldn't really care. Maybe some of you wouldn't be upset. Maybe some of you would just say: " Well, everybody has to die sometime right?"

Nah, utterly redundant to end life prematurely even given that.

 

[Elioenai26]

On the contrary, it's very advisable that those not directly/emotionally involved with an incident such as that do try and discuss the morality of what happened. They are better placed to do so rationally.

Nah, utterly redundant to end life prematurely even given that.

Ok, let's discuss it rationally. Was it morally commendable for the terrorists to do what they did? If you are unable or unwilling to give a response that is fine.