responsibility and morality

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

47 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I suspect that you not only cannot prove your claims, but that you can't even provide any supporting evidence for them that is not fallacious. Which rather begs the question "Why so certain?"

Just stating the obvious.  You would think that "thou shalt not kill" would be nice and simple.  Real life trumps such attempts at objectivity.  Even God failed.

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You would think that "thou shalt not kill" would be nice and simple. 

Note that not believing 2+2=4 has no bearing on its status as objective truth. Neither does not understanding it, not liking it, nor assuming their must be exceptions to it. Note also that proving that 1+2=4 is objectively  wrong does not prevent 2+2=4 from being objectively right.

Edited April 9, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Note that not believing 2+2=4 has no bearing on its status as objective truth. Neither does not understanding it, not liking it, nor assuming their must be exceptions to it. Note also that proving that 1+2=4 is objectively  wrong does not prevent 2+2=4 from being objectively right.

 

Seriously?

 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Seriously?

Yep. If I claimed that animals don't exist and said it was obvious because I have never seen a unicorn...

Edited April 9, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yep. If I claimed that animals don't exist and said it was obvious because I have never seen a unicorn...

Now you're just being silly.  Where are you  going with this?

Edited April 10, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

You made a claim. The claim is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence you have said that such a claim needs?

Edited April 10, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

21 minutes ago, mererdog said:

You made a claim. The claim is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence you have said that such a claim needs?

Do you want extraordinary evidence that animals exist?     

[kokigami]

On 4/5/2016 at 0:05 AM, mererdog said:

Our brains don't like us to focus on any one thing for very long. It makes it easy for predators to sneak up on us. You say you give your whole attention, but do you?

You don't listen to the radio? You don't talk to your passengers? You don't read billboards? You never think about what you want to have for lunch or what you need to pick up at the store? You don't get annoyed by an itch? Because I can guarantee that everyone else on the road with you does almost all those things on a regular basis.

 

An interesting bit of legal weirdness- in most states, someone who is drunk will be considered too mentally  incapacitated to consent to sex, but not too mentally incapacitated to be held responsible for the decision to drive...

That is an interesting legal observation. Still, for legal purposes the drunk having sex is seen as a victim of someone taking advantage of their state. The Drunk in the car is seen as the actor putting others at risk. The real problem comes when two drunks have sex. (Ain't that the truth). 

On 4/6/2016 at 0:14 AM, Dan56 said:

Your professor was an idiot.... Nearly everything in life involves a degree of risk, but when a person puts lives in jeopardy by taking reckless risk, the probability of negative consequences makes them morally culpable. Drunk driving = high risk (immoral), letting your kid play on the monkey bars = low risk (morally acceptable). 

reckless risks is such a subjective concept. The settlers crossing America with kids in tow were taking pretty reckless risks. We punish the drunk driver because society has decided that the risk they pose is greater than the benefit that society gets from them driving. Taken to the extreme, all actions have some potential to cause harm to others. Breathing can spread disease. But, as a society we recognize that breathing offers more societal benefit than societal risk, in most cases.The Prof is right, this isn't a question of morality. 

[mererdog]

6 hours ago, kokigami said:

That is an interesting legal observation. Still, for legal purposes the drunk having sex is seen as a victim of someone taking advantage of their state. The Drunk in the car is seen as the actor putting others at risk.

Much like the way a nine year old is too young to be held accountable for contracts they sign, but not for crimes they commit. When you get down to it, it's really just a matter of ignoring principle when principle is inconvenient...

[kokigami]

On 4/9/2016 at 11:24 PM, Dan56 said:

No, I'm never happy about giving half my money to the government.. Stupid or not, I'd fully support another tax revolt, but that won't happen because most people don't pay a cent, they already have zero taxation with representation. Yes, that war could have been avoided, but only if those patriots were content to stay on their knees to England and surrender their independence & freedom.  Defiance is brave when its corrects the unfair and immoral rule of law.

Principal may be over rated. 

 

[mererdog]

25 minutes ago, kokigami said:

Principal may be over rated. 

 

Yes. Principle never is, though...

Grammar jokes is awesome.

Edited April 12, 2016 by mererdog

[kokigami]

In principal, perhaps.

 

[mererdog]

On 4/13/2016 at 0:12 AM, kokigami said:

In principal, perhaps.

 

Well, that's just gross...

[Amalga9]

Morality is a human construct with no bearing on the rest of existence. Morality is irrelavent. Every creature of reality is responsible for their own reactions and responces to whatever life throws at them. Being a Minister doesn't mean that you have to be a bleeding heart. It just means you have to be "Strong" enough to help people back up when they "fall". 

[Key]

On 12/22/2020 at 4:20 AM, Amalga9 said:

Morality is a human construct with no bearing on the rest of existence. Morality is irrelavent. Every creature of reality is responsible for their own reactions and responces to whatever life throws at them. Being a Minister doesn't mean that you have to be a bleeding heart. It just means you have to be "Strong" enough to help people back up when they "fall". 

I don't necessarily agree to the word "strong", as much as "open minded" or "understanding" to replace it in that statement. Sometimes the bonding of two weak souls can make each other stronger just through support of each other by mutual understanding.