Perverted Penguins

[murraybiscuit]

Intellectual abstractions.

Either they have their basis in reality (realist approach) or they don't (anti-realist approach). In the first case they can be discovered through reason. In the second case, all "first principles" are mere... well mental masturbations if you want.

I don't really have the philosophical framework to give realism vs anti-realism due critique. That aside, it would be nice to have some examples of self-evident principles from which we would derive a set of laws. Or maybe just a few examples of the laws themselves. I work better with examples

 

[Techne]

It's like Saw: Philosophical Edition.

Lol!

Pigeons are evil...

[video=youtube;ckP_qBqmS6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckP_qBqmS6c[/video]

 

[Techne]

I don't really have the philosophical framework to give realism vs anti-realism due critique. That aside, it would be nice to have some examples of self-evident principles from which we would derive a set of laws. Or maybe just a few examples of the laws themselves. I work better with examples

Try Euclidean maths. Or the principle of non-contradiction. Or Aristotelian formal logic.

 

[murraybiscuit]

Try Euclidean maths. Or the principle of non-contradiction. Or Aristotelian formal logic.

Clearly by "laws" I was referring to a legislative system, or at least a normative framework It seems to me that you believe in some kind of implicit / objective set of morals in life, but when asked to enumerate, you obfuscate.

 

[Techne]

Clearly by "laws" I was referring to a legislative system, or at least a normative framework It seems to me that you believe in some kind of implicit / objective set of morals in life, but when asked to enumerate, you obfuscate.

Sorry, your question appeared a bit vague to me, hence the reply. Formal logic and the principle of non-contradiction are of course not irrelevant at arriving at or supporting moral first principles.

But do you promise to read the material that is relevant, really apply the principle of charity, try to understand what was written and then base an opinion after you have actually read and understand it? No use in me pointing you to literature only to see the genetic fallacy being pulled out?

Anyway, I thought "The Science of Ethics" series was good. Old but good and still very relevant.
http://archive.org/details/scienceofethics01cron
http://archive.org/details/scienceofethics02cron

The pdf versions are readable.

 

[buyeye]

The original statement that that says it is unnatural for 2 men to have sex is from a religious background and specificaly refers to it being unnatural for a human being not an animal.

Also it suprises me how much people who are anti religion care what we think of them.

Lastly a dead person cannot consent try justify that.

 

[murraybiscuit]

/snip

thanks. I'll take a look. I had a brief look through the morality of science page on wiki earlier. Maybe skip the condescension in future for even better results

 

[Techne]

No condescension was implied, sorry, I think it came out wrong. It was irritation born out of previous experiences of people just not caring what other people actually think, people who would rather stick to their made-up caricatures of others.

 

[Geriatrix]

The original statement that that says it is unnatural for 2 men to have sex is from a religious background and specificaly refers to it being unnatural for a human being not an animal.

So if one does not subscribe to said religion it is not relevant to them.

Also it suprises me how much people who are anti religion care what we think of them.

They don't. It becomes a problem when you want to force your religious opinions upon others via laws,the political system or other subtle forms of discrimination.

Lastly a dead person cannot consent try justify that.

What is it with the necrophilia thing? Is a dead body even really a person who any more? Do dead bodies have rights or do the families of the dead have rights to the bodies? Honest question, I have no idea. :wtf:

 

[buyeye]

So if one does not subscribe to said religion it is not relevant to them.


They don't. It becomes a problem when you want to force your religious opinions upon others via laws,the political system or other subtle forms of discrimination.


What is it with the necrophilia thing? Is a dead body even really a person who any more? Do dead bodies have rights or do the families of the dead have rights to the bodies? Honest question, I have no idea. :wtf:

I believe the family holds the rights to the body so then consent would have to be obtained from the family.

 

[Geriatrix]

I believe the family holds the rights to the body so then consent would have to be obtained from the family.

That would be one aaaaawkward conversation....

 

[Unhappy438]

people are people, dogs are dogs, birds are birds, bees are bees. if you have necrophicliac fantasies, don't get justification from penguins, just do it. likewise even if there are homosexual animals in nature as many people seem to hope, tough. people think homosexuality is cool coz it's in nature but so is cannibalism, and they wouldn't condone eating their kids, so why not just confess that we're different to animals and we have our own rituals and social system?

If this is your view then i agree mostly, my intent was not to try and justify human actions because animals do it. I was merely refuting the argument that homosexuality is unnatural. Your comparison between homosexuality and cannibalism is ridiculous btw.

 

[STS]

Why? How is cannibalism not natural in nature?

 

[Swa]

Yup and we are back to first principles and other philosophical musings. In a fscking science thread. Sweet Jesus you just can't help yourself Techne!

Oh boy. YOU derail threads in the science section as much as anybody else so stop playing that card and complaining.

You like to claim your "science" to be the be all and end all of everything but science can't show anything as correct. Science can't even show itself correct and has to rely on philosophy and logic. You conveniently don't want to answer to those as they refute your pseudoscience and instead just proclaim that science doesn't prove things.

Trivially it is true but also self-refuting for your arguments. If science doesn't prove anything then it's ultimately useless and of no value. Or if science doesn't prove anything then proof lies outside of science. In that case science doesn't have the final say and something else e.g. philosophy trumps it every time. You can't have your bread buttered on both sides by claiming science doesn't provide proof and then claiming a theory to be the best explanation for something by rejecting everything else. That's absurd in the highest degree.

A secondary aspect of theories is correctness and utility. If theories can make the correct predictions and be of some utility they can be assumed to be correct. To further elucidate the point take the recent Higgs circus as an example. There are at least 11 separate Higgsless models that explain mass. So how to determine the correct model by looking only at falsifiability? It's futile.

 

[Swa]

They don't. It becomes a problem when you want to force your religious opinions upon others via laws,the political system or other subtle forms of discrimination.

So people's religious opinions should not be forced through the school system?

 

[Geriatrix]

So people's religious opinions should not be forced through the school system?

What? I thought we agreed that all of them should be forced them. All kids should be forced to learn all religions in school! That's what was agreed upon wasn't it?

 

[DJ...]

So people's religious opinions should not be forced through the school system?

Not unless you're gonna force them all. In which case it will be a 12 hour religious school day followed by the usual 8 hours of school, 3 hours of prayer and meditation and an hour of sleep, as long as there is no homework. Are we in agreement?

 

[Swa]

Are we in agreement?

Of course we are. Have always said that. Except if you are Christian or Hindu or Muslim and go to such a school. Then it's simply a freely exercised choice.

 

[murraybiscuit]

That would be one aaaaawkward conversation....

Funnily enough, most countries don't have laws against necro-cannibalism iirc. And if you were to be cannibalized while alive, there would most likely be a preceding infringement.

The performance artist Rick Gibson explored the boundaries between death, cannibalism and social taboo. He got into a bit of trouble over it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Gibson

 

[DJ...]

Of course we are. Have always said that. Except if you are Christian or Hindu or Muslim and go to such a school. Then it's simply a freely exercised choice.

But government schools should teach every single religion, or none at all?