Speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions

[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.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

OK, at least skip to the end of this post then where I address this.

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.

It's very different.

It's not simply contesting it (that was just an example) it was never condoned. The 4 people have every right to start bashing heads (figuratively speaking). They may feel that drawing lots is more fair. Or they may feel that the vote must be unanimous.

But once they've agreed to a majority vote, then they have no recourse. Any complaint would be met with "You agreed to this. This is your rule as much as mine."

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).

All beside the point. We agree, or we change the system, or we leave.

"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.

No. Look up "murder".

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.

You do have a choice. You choose the (granted, much) lesser of your choices.

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).

You do not need ID to leave a country.

Regardless, "I can't afford to leave" doesn't translate into "therefore I don't agree to abide by the laws of this country".
But "I stay" does translate into "I agree to abide by the laws of the country."

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.

I'm not sure how this is off-topic. We were talking about subjectivity of unethical acts. We can't really move forward without agreeing on the subjectivity of the acts themselves.

I believe I hit the nail on the head OP-wise in post 60: "If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?" and this is what we are currently discussing.

I'm happy to entertain an alternate example of a subjective act though.

 

[JaredJames]

The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.

"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting into another country without it?

 

[JaredJames]

oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.

 

[DaveC426913]

The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.

Fair enough.

"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting into another country without it?

Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.

 

[JaredJames]

Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.

Exactly

 

[junglebeast]

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?

That's a good point which I had never considered. Of course, 90% is not an average, but one could easily imagine certain individuals with other conditions who are informed by their doctors that they personally have a higher than 90% chance of death if they continue with the pregnancy. If abortion were made illegal, then this would be effectively giving a death sentence to those women. One can take this example further -- what if your doctor tells you that you have a 95% chance that both you and your baby will die during childbirth? Would pro-life advocates force you, by law, to murder yourself for only the 5% chance of having a motherless baby?

If you look at the overall average maternity related deaths, the historical level is something like 1% death. Currently in the US, it's only 0.01%. However, that risk is something like 5 times higher for women over 40.

 

[JaredJames]

Exactly junglebeast, I do understand the prolife argument to some extent. But my problem Firstly is where do you consider a foetus a child/sentient being? and Secondly, if a law does say NO ABORTIONS, you are sentencing these mothers to death.
This is what bugs me, a law saying yes to abortions would give everyone a choice. You decide if you want one or not. Full stop. I cannot stand people who try to force their views one me, which is what a law against it would be. I bash religious types enough about it but in this case it is no different.

These pro-life people are ignorant to the health of the mother (and to some extent the father WRT mental anguish if both child and mother were to die). Simple.

Jared

 

[Proton Soup]

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

this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on anyone subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.

 

[DaveC426913]

oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.

What? It most certainly does! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.

 

[JaredJames]

What? It most certainly does! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.

Yes, but its still murder isn't it?

To kill another person is to murder them. Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.

 

[JaredJames]

this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on anyone subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.

This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but its still murder isn't it?

No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.

To kill another person is to murder them.

You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.

Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.[/QUOTE]What do you mean "isn't viewed as"? Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.

 

[junglebeast]

No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.

You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.

I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..

 

[JaredJames]

I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..

Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law. There was no recourse to the king breaking them because any person going against the king would find their head on a spike sharing the view with person A.

 

[Proton Soup]

This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared

well i don't know what he believes, which is why i asked. maybe he should choose better examples. even then, I'm not sure i'd call it ignorance. I'm not sure i would even classify it as http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance" if i understand you correctly.

 

[JaredJames]

Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.

 

[Proton Soup]

Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.

yes, but again, he should use a better example, like say F=m*a. global warming is a socioeconomic, political and religious issue.

 

[JaredJames]

yes, i do agree there.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law.

A King's decree is the change in the law.

There is no "lag between the King commanding something and that something being a law that the King is somehow breaking".

 

[JaredJames]

OK, I've done some research and here goes:

The definition of murder as I pointed out is -"The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse."
Now I said, "just because a king says it isn't murder, doesn't make it so." And your answer to which was along the lines of "Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.".

Now I would like to point out here that unlawful has a number of definitions, and DOES NOT solely mean against the law. One of the definitions under it is as follows - " not morally right or permissible; ". Thus, just because the king kills someone does not make it lawful, and as such it is murder.

Here is a definition of lawful and legal - "Lawful means conformable to the principle, spirit, or essence of the law, and is applicable to moral as well as juridical law. Legal means conformable to the letter or rules of the law as it is administered in the courts; conformable to juridical law."
As you can see above, lawful applies to both moral AND juridical law. As such you can classify the king killing someone as morally wrong and hence murder. Legal on the other hand specifically applies to juridical law and to say the kings decree to kill is legal would be correct. However, the definition of murder specifically points to unlawful, not legal.

For legal/lawful see useage section:
http://define.com/lawful

For unlawful definitions:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/unlawful
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlawfully

 

[Math Is Hard]

So "murder" is the moral judgment of the individual? I may have just committed 400 murders in my kitchen depending on who you ask.

(Hey, I gave those ants a chance to leave. They were warned.)

 

[JaredJames]

So "murder" is the moral judgment of the individual? I may have just committed 400 murders in my kitchen depending on who you ask.

(Hey, I gave those ants a chance to leave. They were warned.)

Yes, any person who strongly supports animal (or in your case bug) rights would say that. Under the original common law definition of murder you could certainly apply it. According to those definitions, unlawful can extend so far as to be defined as going against moral convention. Morally, killing is wrong, they knew that even in the days of Britains propper kings. And so by extension you could say that as it was socially unacceptable and morally wrong to kill, then it is unlawful and so the king is murdering someone.

Hey, I'm only going by what I've read here. The definition is open to interpretation like a lot of things, to me, that is how it reads. You cannot deny my logic, however you have to look at other situations and consider how you apply the definition to those before making a defninitive answer here.

 

[JaredJames]

Just a thought here, by looking at all possible definitions and aquiring as much information regarding this particular phase of the discussion you could say I have obsereved the available facts and drawn, whether you accept it or not, a plausible and valid conclusion based on what I have in front of me. Whereas for everyone to shoot it down based on their own (possibly) limited understandings of the discussion without any form of evidence or making a joke of it (yes you maths is hard) are being quite ignorant. And thus providing support for the original the point of discussion for this thread.

Jared

 

[Math Is Hard]

Don't get me wrong, Jared. I'm not busting your chops - I just want to see if we can get down to business on the definitions.

So we have 1) "murder" in the legal sense, and 2) "murder" in the moral sense? I think if we agree that these are separate definitions of murder, it clears up some things in this discussion. Although, I'm not entirely sure they are so easily separable, because the legal definitions of murder have everything to do with the majority of a society's moral definitions of murder. It's murky territory.

 

[JaredJames]

Thats what I've been trying to say regarding murder and moral acceptability. Personally I want to get back to the discussion on ignorance, if there's anything left of it. As I stated earlier, I lost track of this a long time ago and just want to get back to the matter the OP was about.

 

[GeorginaS]

Thats what I've been trying to say regarding murder and moral acceptability. Personally I want to get back to the discussion on ignorance, if there's anything left of it. As I stated earlier, I lost track of this a long time ago and just want to get back to the matter the OP was about.

And again, we have yet to receive, from Sorry!, his/her definition of "ignorance" as it pertains to their postulations here. We have a couple of guesses at what Sorry! means(t) when they use that word, but no direct explanation from them in order that we may better address the supposed ethical issue attaching to the proffered "ignorance".

The king and murder discussion has been interesting.

 

[Sorry!]

Yeah, I was thinking ignorance in the sense that jared had posted. Sorry took me so long to post on here I have been pretty busy. Definitions of words aside I don't think it's a problem of language...

You can't argue that murder is wrong, it comes with the definition of the word... but is killing? I think it is completely situational and as long as people think rationally about the situation they will get the proper answer. Not counting mentally unstable people (people who stray from the norm don't bother arguing semantics it's annoying.)

But yes my word choice labelling as 'ignorance' is probably a bad choice.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, I was thinking ignorance in the sense that jared had posted.

Let's list it explicitly so that we can move forward from here.

Willful ignorance is the act of...

people who, despite the incontrovertible evidence, will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely implausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims.

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

 

[JaredJames]

Nicely put dave. Let us move forward from here and look at this question:

"Is this unethical behaviour?"

(At least when I get back from lunch anyhow)

 

[GeorginaS]

Let's list it explicitly so that we can move forward from here.

Willful ignorance is the act of...

people who, despite the incontrovertible evidence, will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely implausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims.

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

Okay. If that is our working definition of ignorance for the purposes of this discussion, then we're suggesting that willful ignorance is self-delusion. Lying to one's self, even. We're saying it's someone's personal beliefs defying all evidence to the contrary.

I would ask, then, is being untrue to one's self unethical? Does an individual have a duty to tell one's self the truth? As far as I'm concerned, if lying to myself gives me comfort in some situations, I see no harm or unethical behaviour taking place.

Ethics relates to conduct, does it not? So if I'm merely self-deluded and my self-delusion doesn't affect anyone else, I can't see my way clear to calling "ignorance" unethical. It's not until one inflicts or insinuates one's deliberately unsubstantiated beliefs on other individuals that the question of ethics comes into play.