Speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions

[GeorginaS]

I'm having a semantics issue with the word "ignorant(ce)". In the absence of a clear definition, I can't see a clear path to discussing ethics in relation to it.

 

[JaredJames]

Being stupid is lovelier than being smart
most ignorant people are cute. I love to be friends with them

No one would want to be always in touch with too smart men if s/she is not one of them!

Or it could just make you feel really intelligent. And in respect to your last sentence, surely that would apply to yourself and a more ignorant person? With you being the 'too smart' side of things in your case.

Jared

 

[Moonbear]

I'm having a semantics issue with the word "ignorant(ce)". In the absence of a clear definition, I can't see a clear path to discussing ethics in relation to it.

This seems to be the key, and perhaps is the reason we're all ignorant of the discussion Sorry! is attempting to start. It's also likely the reason we found it in GD and not Philosophy, because defining key terms to allow for rational discussion are part of the philosophy forum guidelines.

The trouble I'm having is that it seems the premise of the discussion lies somewhere in the context of a conversation Sorry! had with someone somewhere else, but s/he is reluctant to share any details of that conversation. It's really hard to have a discussion when only one person knows what the context is and none of the key terms have been defined.

 

[Sorry!]

Ok the conversation I had with this person had to do with religious scripture. In particular the Christian Bible. People believe the bible to be inerrant. That is without errors, no contridictions, all truth. When these people read the bible they go into the situation already KNOWING what they will read is true.

The person I was talking to is attending York University for biophysics. So I assumed they had general ideas about scientific thoughts etc. Since they are being educated at a undergraduate level and I have only completed high school they must know more than I.

Well he started arguing with me about how dating methods are wrong, about stars not being as far away as science claims, he argued against evolution on the grounds that speciation doesn't occur and he attempted to argue with me that sciences goal is to prove things. (I didn't agree with this I felt that science merely attempts to explain things based upon given evidence.) All this seems blatantly ignorant and in my opinion goes back to him believing the bible to be inerrant. (the list of things he argued against is actually a lot longer than this. I finally gave up talking to him but I don't understand how people can think it is ok to think like this. Just because you have the right to doesn't make it right to abuse that right.)

I sent him to multiple sciam articles many websites to do with evolution and even tried to get at him with common sense. He sent me websites too to attempt to prove his position to me. After investigating the 'scientist' I found that they were FAR in the minority and few in numbers. However, the christian public seems to take their word on things.

Interestingly enough he believes in things such as: noah's flood, all the miracles associated with the bible, gifts such as speaking in tongues or healing, that murder/suicide is caused by demons possessing people... the list goes on.

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)

Note also that I said hinder not stop.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree, as my previous posts show. Without re-stating all I said previously, basically, they read the bible, take it literally or as close to and then ignore all scientific evidence.

What I cannot understand is how when given all the evidence available, they can simply turn round and say "it's like that because god wants it like that" or "god skews results". I just can't see any reason why a person can take the religious texts, which all conflict and make certain things (such as murder) not crimes in certain 'stories', simply believe it without there being a shred of evidence to back up any claims made within those texts. Whereas all the evidence that backs up science is dissmissed either as wrong or because god made it that way. This isn't striding forward and an attempt at development, it is an attempt to keep us where we are, if it wasn't for science and everyone remained completely religious, we would have nothing like the technology we have today and would not be having this debate (probably praying instead).

I personnally don't care what a person believes, but I simply do not wish to believe, nor have you try to convince me that the big pixie in the sky exists. I can't say I've ever had a Quantum Physicist pop round on a sunday morning and try to discuss the finer points of Quantum Mechanics with me. If forced, my religion is Jedi and I believe in the great teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars.

Jared

 

[protonchain]

I'm hindu. Let me just get that out there.

This guy didnt know that i was, and he came up to sell me his copy of the Bhagavad Gita (one of the religious books some hindus consult now and then when we're troubled with life). His copy was a small paper back no bigger than 120 pages - 200 pages. I told him I had one at home that was bigger than the dictionary, with clear cut translations and explanations of all the things Krishna said to Arjuna.

He said mine was wrong, and that I should buy his book.

What
the
hell

 

[JaredJames]

I'm hindu. Let me just get that out there.

This guy didnt know that i was, and he came up to sell me his copy of the Bhagavad Gita (one of the religious books some hindus consult now and then when we're troubled with life). His copy was a small paper back no bigger than 120 pages - 200 pages. I told him I had one at home that was bigger than the dictionary, with clear cut translations and explanations of all the things Krishna said to Arjuna.

He said mine was wrong, and that I should buy his book.

What
the
hell

Exactly

 

[Dadface]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

omg I think I used to date that guy.

Yes lisab,it brings back fond memories.

 

[DaveC426913]

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)

It is still his right to pursue his own happiness. He is not forcing himself on anyone who is not already converted.

Utopia (or some other perfect world) does not mean that everyone has to agree with everyone else.

You can't state categorically and objectively that "his philosophy of life is wrong and should be corrected".

 

[Sorry!]

This is true assuming people keep their beliefs to themselves. However it is not the case. Everywhere I turn my head I see these people causing troubles. Global warming is a major point for our modern day society. As is creationist arguing that creation should be taught in science class. Or that evolution shouldn't be taught.

Most wars have been fought because of ignorance.

It would of course be a completely fair point to question who is the ignorant one... and to that I would just say that if we were all rational people and critical thinkers we would not even need to question what counts as ignorant.

To claim that say Hitler supported the holocaust with logic or evidence of any sort is to show you also think that it was a rational decision. Was it though? Really? Substitute holocaust and Hitler for other events... Scientific method doesn't wage wars and it's intention is not to spark debate. Merely to find a answer based on evidence. Human ignorance and arrogance is the problem.

 

[junglebeast]

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

 

[Sorry!]

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

I would never go to say that people don't hold biases or make decisions based on these biases. Its part of critical thinking though. Just because right now I am biased towards say evolution doesn't mean if a theory comes tomorrow I will not listen to it.

 

[JaredJames]

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

Of course, I would certainly agree there must be some biases. What I was trying to refer to there are extreme biases. I should have made it more clear. People and scientists are most definitely biased and it aids progress as people argue the various hypothesis with their biases playing a part in it. However, there are some arguments so extremem and unplausible that they must not allow them to intervene and circumvent progress. I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause. All the evidence I have seen points to us simply adding to the problem and not being the sole cause. Because of the way it is portrayed in the media and such people have a very biased view of it and don't want to here anything other than the facts that support themselves.

Jared

 

[junglebeast]

However, there are some arguments so extremem and unplausible that they must not allow them to intervene and circumvent progress. I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause.

Yeah, some people are not very smart. Unfortunately, the smart people have more intellectually stimulating things to do than diddle with politics -- so it's the dumb people that run things.

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah, some people are not very smart. Unfortunately, the smart people have more intellectually stimulating things to do than diddle with politics -- so it's the dumb people that run things.

Something we can both agree on there. Although they certainly know how to fiddle the system (expenses etc).

Jared

 

[arunma]

Ok the conversation I had with this person had to do with religious scripture. In particular the Christian Bible. People believe the bible to be inerrant. That is without errors, no contridictions, all truth. When these people read the bible they go into the situation already KNOWING what they will read is true.

The person I was talking to is attending York University for biophysics. So I assumed they had general ideas about scientific thoughts etc. Since they are being educated at a undergraduate level and I have only completed high school they must know more than I.

Well he started arguing with me about how dating methods are wrong, about stars not being as far away as science claims, he argued against evolution on the grounds that speciation doesn't occur and he attempted to argue with me that sciences goal is to prove things. (I didn't agree with this I felt that science merely attempts to explain things based upon given evidence.) All this seems blatantly ignorant and in my opinion goes back to him believing the bible to be inerrant. (the list of things he argued against is actually a lot longer than this. I finally gave up talking to him but I don't understand how people can think it is ok to think like this. Just because you have the right to doesn't make it right to abuse that right.)

I sent him to multiple sciam articles many websites to do with evolution and even tried to get at him with common sense. He sent me websites too to attempt to prove his position to me. After investigating the 'scientist' I found that they were FAR in the minority and few in numbers. However, the christian public seems to take their word on things.

Interestingly enough he believes in things such as: noah's flood, all the miracles associated with the bible, gifts such as speaking in tongues or healing, that murder/suicide is caused by demons possessing people... the list goes on.

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)

Note also that I said hinder not stop.

Ah, I see, another good ol' religion bashing session. So much for science never starting any fights...

Here's my simple solution. If the guy is studying biophysics, then he knows how to think about scientific issues. If he believes that radioisotope dating methods are faulty, explain to him how it works: mention the necessary assumptions, the applicable physical laws, and the logical conclusions. If he believes that the universe is 6,000 years old, explain how cosmological redshift works. If he rejects evolutionary theory...ask someone else, since I'm a physicist. He's obviously intelligent enough to understand these things, and I think the creationist arguments against these scientific truths are weak enough that even he will ultimately be able to see past them. Creation science usually rests on poking holes in accepted scientific theories instead of proposing testable propositions, and if you sit down with this person and explain the facts instead of attacking him, you might get somewhere.

The problem isn't that he believes the Bible is inerrant. The problem is that some guy (possibly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind" told him that evolution and cosmology are inherently atheistic and that being faithful to God necessitates opposition to certain scientific truths. Bashing him over the head about how he's just another ignorant/arrogant theist who needs to accept an atheistic worldview is only going to solidify him in that position. Insulting people rarely has any positive effect.

I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause.

I'll agree right off the bat that if you're talking about creation science not being a part of our scientific understanding, then I agree (at least until those guys can produce a testable theory). However, to say that "religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country" is, in my opinion, quite irresponsible. As you yourself admitted, everyone has biases, and in a democratic government these biases will enter into people's decisions about how the nation ought to be run. What you are doing is selectively restricting the biases that can inform people's political judgments. You are, in effect, dictating how voters ought to think. Would it be OK for me to say that conservatives shouldn't allow their conservativism to influence their votes (I wouldn't mind this actually, but hopefully you see my point)? Or how about not allowing poor people to be informed by their poverty when they vote?

What meter do you use in determining what biases can and can't affect people's legislative decisions? I hope that meter isn't "stuff I don't like," because then you are locking the nation into a single political mindset, and it is impossible to produce any government besides the one that you desire. The very notion of democracy then becomes meaningless, and one might as well have a dictator whose political views happen to agree with yours. Instead of telling people how to think, it seems like a better idea to use intellectual persuasion to make your political views prevail.

Consider global warming. We all know why the anti-global warming crowd tries to deny an observable effect. It isn't because they doubt the human contribution to global warming, rather it's because they know that efforts to curb global warming require us to enact economic policies that they don't like. They're not really as stupid as you think; they just don't want to foot the bill for environmentally friendly policies. Maybe you think that people shouldn't be allowed to support political platforms that benefit them at the cost of the world's well-being. But again, I think you'll see that this negates an important aspect of democracy.

 

[JaredJames]

WRT to the 'government' issue. No government should allow religious beliefs to influence them. A government should run a country for the people, all people, regardless of religion, sex, sexual-preference etc. To allow religious beliefs into a debate regarding how a country should be run opens up the possibility of introducing laws which are unethical.

Here's one from a country where religion defines law:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/200...ns-new-law-allowing-men-to-rape-their-wives/"

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/04/19/update-new-afghan-law-does-not-permit-rape-but-permits-starvation-of-wives-who-withhold-sex/"

I also believe the US constitution states religion and law should remain seperate. Any person in politics should leave their religious beliefs to the side when discussing the running of a country and defining new laws.

Until someone provides evidence that backs up any religious claims, they should be dismissed. I would like to note I hold this view of all things, scientific included. No evidence to show me, no belief from me. Simple.

When I say some biases are needed, I mean so long as they are justifiable and acceptable (. A bias, as someone put earlier of 'the holocaust being right' is certainly not acceptable and should play no part. You say meter, well ok, let's set it shall we, if you can provide clear evidence which backs up your hypothesis/theory etc., then it becomes acceptable to have a bias towards that belief. If however you cannot, which is the way religions and most crackpot ideals are, then they should not be acceptable and influence any decision making that occurs.
Your poverty example is one where people do have evidence to back it up, (poor housing, healthcare and so on), and yes, it should influence their vote for a party who will help them. Where as a person who says "i won't vote for (example) labour because they advocate teaching evolution in schools" is forming that opinion purely on the back of unproven religious beliefs or un conventional beliefs in a far fetched creation idea.

Right, more of a political thing than anything else on global warming here. But let's ignore GW for now and let me give my opinion on democracy, so you can see things (hopefully) as I see them.

I like democracy, everyone gets a say in what goes on. But, to me it's a good concept but not a good solution when it comes to running a country. You see I think only people who actually understand the subject matter at hand very well, and, the people who the proposal will affect should be allowed to vote on them. Let's say, the government wants to build two nuclear reactors in south england. Now, they put it to the vote on the subject. I understand the people around the areas they will be built in getting a say, and I understand the scientists for and against them getting a say. But I don't see why a scottish highlands sheep farmer should get a say in the matter, they don't directly affect him and unless he's hiding his credentials well, he isn't going to have a comprehensive knowledge nuclear power. To me, his vote is not worth anything as it will be purely opinion based. Opinions which may be biased strongly based on false information.

A bias, based on a good, strong, knowledge of the subject matter can certainly be a good thing. A bias based on nothing more than faith, media influence or a very limited knowledge is a bad thing and potentialy dangerous to a country/project.

Jared

 

[DaveC426913]

To claim that say Hitler supported the holocaust with logic or evidence of any sort is to show you also think that it was a rational decision. Was it though? Really? Substitute holocaust and Hitler for other events...

I call Godwin's Law.

"... the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis [or Hitler] has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."

Thread locked. You lose.

 

[JaredJames]

I call Godwin's Law.

Ha, I like it. Never heard of that one.

 

[Sorry!]

Ha, I like it. Never heard of that one.

me neither actually. lol. I don't think the reference to Hitler or holocaust is because the topic is old but because it is easily understood.

 

[DaveC426913]

me neither actually. lol. I don't think the reference to Hitler or holocaust is because the topic is old but because it is easily understood.

What it is is melodramatic.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is true assuming people keep their beliefs to themselves. However it is not the case. Everywhere I turn my head I see these people causing troubles. Global warming is a major point for our modern day society. As is creationist arguing that creation should be taught in science class. Or that evolution shouldn't be taught.

Most wars have been fought because of ignorance.

It would of course be a completely fair point to question who is the ignorant one... and to that I would just say that if we were all rational people and critical thinkers we would not even need to question what counts as ignorant.

Sorry!, by what yardsticks do you measure
- what things are important not to be ignorant of
- what things help versus hinder the human race

Do you not see that these things are not objective? Do you not see that I (and every other person) could probably list a dozen things each off the top of our heads that you are ignorant of in our opinion?

Why do you think your own personal idea of what's important is somehow superior to anyone else's?

 

[Sorry!]

Sorry!, by what yardsticks do you measure
- what things are important not to be ignorant of
- what things help versus hinder the human race

Do you not see that these things are not objective? Do you not see that I (and every other person) could probably list a dozen things each off the top of our heads that you are ignorant of in our opinion?

Why do you think your own personal idea of what's important is somehow superior to anyone else's?

I already state that in my other post so clearly I understand that ignorance is subjective. I never once stated that my opinions are of greater value comparative. I made the broad statement that IGNORANCE IS UNETHICAL. Where in this can you point to me that I have stated that my idea is superior? You are making comparative efforts of my beliefs instead of the actually concept of ignorance. You do not understand what it is I'm speaking of in this sense I think... that's not my problem.

Infact jared has already discussed this point:

Until someone provides evidence that backs up any religious claims, they should be dismissed. I would like to note I hold this view of all things, scientific included. No evidence to show me, no belief from me. Simple.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

do you know what ignorance is ?

 

[DaveC426913]

I already state that in my other post so clearly I understand that ignorance is subjective. I never once stated that my opinions are of greater value comparative. I made the broad statement that IGNORANCE IS UNETHICAL. Where in this can you point to me that I have stated that my idea is superior? You are making comparative efforts of my beliefs instead of the actually concept of ignorance. You do not understand what it is I'm speaking of in this sense I think... that's not my problem.

If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?

"What you're doing there is wrong in my opinion."
"It is not wrong in my opinion."
"You win. Your logic is inescapable."

 

[JaredJames]

If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?

"What you're doing there is wrong in my opinion."
"It is not wrong in my opinion."
"You win. Your logic is inescapable."

Well ok, I'm going to go a bit extreme as an example, but here goes:

Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong. However, based on what you are saying, providing I decide it to be ethically right, whether in the case of a doctor and terminal patient or me taking revenge on someone who has wronged me, and accept that as it is only subjectively wrong, does that actually make it ethical, should I be allowed to do it purely because I don't judge it wrong?

Subjective views by the majority, form what we consider ethics. Therefore, if subjective things can be unethical.

Here are two articles I pulled with a quick google search:
http://artistthinker.wordpress.com/2006/02/21/gray-world/"

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=819274"

They both discuss why murder is wrong, socially and philosphically.

Jared

 

[JaredJames]

do you know what ignorance is ?

In this case, I believe Sorry! is reffering to ignorance in the sense of a person dismissing facts without justification purely to benefit themselves.

E.g. An oil company making billions of pounds a day selling a product which, not matter how it is used, produces pollution on a massive scale. Is going to be reluctant to accept that its product is a direct cause of global warming:

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html"

In such a case, the company (or I should say directors/upper level staff) will ignore the evidence presented and only accept hypothesis/theories which support their point of view. Maintaining their own happiness and justifying their cause.

I know that is a company not a person, but it is the same principle.

Jared

 

[JaredJames]

I made the broad statement that IGNORANCE IS UNETHICAL.

Just a quick note here, I will agree with this statement, as I understand it.
For myself, if a person is provided the facts of an argument, what ever it may be, and they actively dismiss them in favour of their own beliefs even if the facts are incontrovertible, then they are being ignorant. This, especially in the context of defining laws can prove to be dangerous.

"Ethics are considered the moral standards by which people judge behavior."

Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy? Is it unethical that the against crowd are ignorant to this evidence and danger and want to force her, by passing a law against abortion, to continue the pregnancy, ultimately endangering two lives?
At least with the pro law allowing abortion it becomes the mothers choice.

For people to force a law against abortion based on their own bias, means everyone is affected and could possibly endanger a number of mothers where they have HAD to continue with the pregnancy. You remove the freedom people have over their own bodies and force them to accept a death sentence if anything goes wrong. Whereas, a law allowing abortion gives everyone a choice, allows them to exercise their own bias towards the subject and decide what they want to do. If you are against, don't do it, if you are for, then it' up to you.

Ethics are subjective, for the against crowd it is unethical to kill an unborn. For the pro crowd it is unethical to risk a mothers life/force a baby they cannot provide for. You could argue the against movement are judging a mothers life less worthy than the childs (seems a dull argument given the prolife matter at hand), or that they judge the death of a mother to save an unborn ethical. Also, you can look at it from the other point of view, the pro abortion group are saying the death of an unborn is ethical (depends on when you consider the foetus to be a 'sentient being'). You decide.

In either case and regardless of what you are arguing, ignoring incontrovertible evidence seems ignorant to myself.

Jared

 

[DaveC426913]

Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong.

I put to you that murder is not subjectively wrong.

It is not simply "the majority of people" deciding murder is unethical, it is society that has enacted this as law (the fact that it's a majority vote is not the issue. A law is a law, and is abided by all.)

These laws are agreed to by every citizen of the country. It is this agreement (or the decision to emmigrate) that infers that the person in question has stated that murder is unethical.

 

[DaveC426913]

Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy?

As a complete aside, I find it interesting that, in your estimation, the Pro-choice stance has to be artificially exaggerated to a 90% risk in order to be obviously comparable to the pro-life stance, which does not need exaggeration. Not a comment on you, just an observation.

 

[JaredJames]

As a complete aside, I find it interesting that, in your estimation, the Pro-choice stance has to be artificially exaggerated to a 90% risk in order to be obviously comparable to the pro-life stance, which does not need exaggeration. Not a comment on you, just an observation.

Just a quick one for this, I only used 90% as an extreme example, although for you to say artificially exaggerated implies it never occurs when it does. However, the statement made regardless of the risk to a mother stands. I used the figure to make a point, that even when the odds are that a mother will die (loss of life) the pro life people want the pregnancy to go ahead (to create a life). which from a mathematical point of view leaves us with zero gain, plus it completely destroys the pro life argument of every life being valued.

Jared

 

[JaredJames]

Well firstly you contradict yourself:

It is not simply "the majority of people" deciding murder is unethical,

society[/I] that has enacted this as law (the fact that it's a majority vote

First you say it isn't the majority of people deciding, then you say it is. That alone discredits your own argument from my point of view. But everyone has their off days so I'll allow this, for now.

Firstly, a law isn't agreed to by every person in a country. I was born in the UK, I have been here all my life, I DO NOT agree to every law here and when you consider the fact that many were made before I was born or at voting age, I had no say in them and so by extension you could say that I am currently 'accepting' them for lack of a better alternative, or by lack of ability (I am a student) to move elsewhere.

Another example, the UK immigration laws. I assume you've heard of the BNP? Well they certainly don't agree with them.
The laws made in the European Courts, we have little say in and yet are imposed on us because the majority of people voted for them.

I agree, murder is socially wrong, but only a few hundred years ago, it was not looked at quite as strongly as it is today. A king could simply order someone to be killed and it would be so. However you look at it, its only when a law is enacted that something becomes socially wrong. Then again, it's illegal to speed and yet people find it socially acceptable to do so. You say that you either agree with the laws or emmigrate to another country, ok but what if you are not able to emmigrate (as I stated above)? Or what if for the most part you accept the laws and there is only a few you disagree with?

Jared

 

[JaredJames]

I would just like to say that this thread has gone way off topic and as such (despite it not being mine) would like to request it either return to original topic or we consider it closed.

Jared

 

[DaveC426913]

Well firstly you contradict yourself:

First you say it isn't the majority of people deciding, then you say it is. That alone discredits your own argument from my point of view. But everyone has their off days so I'll allow this, for now.

Thanks for "allowing" it. :tongue:

It's not a contradiction.

If 5 out of 9 of people on a team decide that Biff should be in charge, that does not automatically oblige everyone else on the team to defer to Biff as the leader (they will contest the manner in which the leader was picked). If however, everyone on the team agrees beforehand that a vote will decide who is the leader, and then the 5 out of 9 members votes Biff in, that does oblige everyone else to agree.

See the difference?


The original statement was "Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong."

I'm pointing out that it's stronger than simply "the majority" agreeing. Everyone has agreed to the process by which the decision has been made for everyone.

Firstly, a law isn't agreed to by every person in a country.

I was born in the UK, I have been here all my life, I DO NOT agree to every law here and when you consider the fact that many were made before I was born or at voting age, I had no say in them and so by extension you could say that I am currently 'accepting' them for lack of a better alternative, or by lack of ability (I am a student) to move elsewhere.

Tough. Like em or leave. The third option is to try to change em - but that still doesn't mean you get to only abide by the ones you like.

By staying in the country, you are agreeing to abide by its laws.

The fact that you don't want to stay or it is very inconvenient for you to leave does not absolve you from agreeing to abide by em.

I agree, murder is socially wrong, but only a few hundred years ago, it was not looked at quite as strongly as it is today. A king could simply order someone to be killed and it would be so.

It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king.

Then again, it's illegal to speed and yet people find it socially acceptable to do so. You say that you either agree with the laws or emmigrate to another country, ok but what if you are not able to emmigrate (as I stated above)?

You are able to. It may just be very inconvenient. You have made a decision that abiding by the laws of the UK are less troublesome than hoofing it into a new country with only what you carry on your back. While I grant this is not practical, nobody is literally putting a gun to your head.

Or what if for the most part you accept the laws and there is only a few you disagree with?

So, you only abide by the ones you agree with? Tell that to your local constabulary.

 

[JaredJames]

"It's not a contradiction.

If 5 out of 9 of people on a team decide that Biff should be in charge, that does not automatically oblige everyone else on the team to defer to Biff as the leader (they will contest the manner in which the leader was picked). If however, everyone on the team agrees beforehand that a vote will decide who is the leader, and then the 5 out of 9 members votes Biff in, that does oblige everyone else to agree.

See the difference?"

So basically, 5 out of 9 say Biff is leader, the other 4 contest it. Ok, but then they all agree to accept the groups decision, 5 out of 9 will still vote Biff in and we're back at square one. Contesting the original decision has simply delayed things (sounds very much like our government). I understand what you mean in that everybody agrees to accept the view of the majority, but it hasn't changed the fact that it is a majority decision. And given we don't live in a perfect world and not everybody chooses to vote, we end up with only the determined ones providing a vote and this can lead to a decision/law/election which is not based on a true majority vote. And if the majority of the people who turn out to vote are extremists, we could end up with an extreme poll result. (Imagine if the BNP got into parliament because the only people who went out to vote were those truly dedicated to their cause). Did the WHOLE population of the UK (or whichever country) accept that the majority vote would be final? Or did a MAJORITY of the citizens accept that the decision is final?

"It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king."

And that makes it not murder in what way? Murder is murder, whether it is decreed by a king or committed by a peasant. Just because they claim it isn't doesn't make it so.

At no point did I say I didn't abide by the laws, I do, the point I was trying to make was that since I was born here, and have no where else to go, I don't have a choice and simply agree to the laws as they are.

One last question, given you have to pay for all forms of photo ID out there, how would you go about emigrating? I have no money to pay for a passport or a drivers license (my passport runs out in august and I lost my license last saturday).

Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.