Learning About Contemporary Thought in Ethics

[Another God]

I don't mean to sound rude or anything like that, but I can't really reply to you rlast post, because as valid as much of it may have been, i fear it all misses the point. This thread has become a discussion about ethics and about right and wrong actions in particular instances and as such should be argued on that level. Your most recent reply though is entirely based on a metaphysical/epistemological level. It is true that these facts are important, but a discussion about ethics is not the place to address them. They are a discussion in their own right. I have my reasons for believing as I do, and if we really wanted to, we could sit down together and discuss it until we reach some resolution between our two views: But I doubt that either of us have the time (they are not easy questions to answer)

One more point though before i finish this post: One of the major intentions behind me exposing my view on ethics is simply to show that the ethic that our society has is (may be) based on entirely physical reality without need of objective right and wrong, without a god, without supernatural reference, and without reference to vague Absolutes. I am claiming to be able to justify our ethical system (or at least start the thought process down that path).

I have learned one thing from this thread so far which is mor important than anything though: It is not necessary to start out on the strongest antagonism: This only causes people to react strongly, and grip their indoctrination more than ever before, fearing the loss of that which they know. In the future, I will start out with semi-neutral topics. Topics which don't invoke a strong natural reaction to deny the possibility.

Maybe another time, in another place, my points will be a little more amiably expressed, and will seem a little less threatening.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
I have learned one thing from this thread so far which is mor important than anything though: It is not necessary to start out on the strongest antagonism: This only causes people to react strongly, and grip their indoctrination more than ever before, fearing the loss of that which they know. In the future, I will start out with semi-neutral topics. Topics which don't invoke a strong natural reaction to deny the possibility.

Maybe another time, in another place, my points will be a little more amiably expressed, and will seem a little less threatening.

AG . . . I like the way you started out. Bold, up front, willing to stick your neck out. In the past I have tested my ideas just like that. I hope you don't get mushy on us, we need people strong enough to argue their position, and brave enough to risk being wrong or unable to explain themselves once in the thick of it.

 

[Another God]

Fear not, my hypothesis is just as strong and my conjectures just as bold. I just need to experiment in the art of persuasion. Not trickery, but learning how to make people realize the doubts they already have of the indoctrinated beliefs that run our society.

I feel a revolution coming on.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
AG . . . I like the way you started out. Bold, up front, willing to stick your neck out. In the past I have tested my ideas just like that. I hope you don't get mushy on us, we need people strong enough to argue their position, and brave enough to risk being wrong or unable to explain themselves once in the thick of it.

Unless it is me, right? Then it is ok to blast me.


Jeez, and this is a thread about ethics?!?

 

[Another God]

HAHAHAHA. LOL.
Sucks to be you!

[6)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Unless it is me, right? Then it is ok to blast me.
Jeez, and this is a thread about ethics?!?

I do get intense at times don't I . . . I will have to work on that. Sometimes it is just me trying squeeze out every last bit meaning from what I want to say. Other times it is due what I see as unfair debating tactics.

It isn't just you. Here for example I got frustrated with AG because I wanted him to address my objections to his philosophy. He didn't, so I got stronger and stronger in my objections. I came from different directions, tried various approaches, but he still just kept merely repeating his points. I don't see how one has a serious debate if contestants do not attempt to address each other's concerns, point for point.

I experience the same frustration with you, plus sometmes I don't feel you debate fairly. In the thread on materialist bias, for instance, it seems like you are being clever to win the debate rather than honestly debating for insight, no matter who provides it.

To me, philosophy and philosophical debate needs to be about learning and teaching, not winning or maintaining one's ego, or pushing one's beliefs. The sincere search for truth, and the willingness to accept it regardless of what golden calves it shatters, seems to be a rare quality these days.

I wouldn't want, however, anyone to feel stifled by the intensity of my challenges, which is why I wrote that last post to AG and you here.

 

[Another God]

roger that