How to defeat ISIL

[GIThruster]

I don't need a Book to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

Honestly, you do Tom. You can shoot from the hip like this and rabbit off the golden rule stuff we're all force fed from our youth, but the fact is if you were not fed that stuff you'd believe something else. You do need a book to teach you right from wrong and just because you now hold some commitments to things you may or may not be able to rationalize as correct, does not mean you'd have gotten there on your own. And besides, you're list is shabby and incomplete. You still, even at this age, don't know right from wrong.

And this is the point folks: these Jihadists, they get their notions of right and wrong from a book which tells them they can brutalize, rob and murder anyone who is an infidel--anyone who does not believe like they do. And like the rest of us, they believe their moral code not only proscribes but prescribes. In the case of the Koran, the prescription for infidels, is the sword. This is why so many of them murder people. This is not some rare or faddish phenomena. It's been going on for as long as Islam has existed. The difference now is, they can walk through the Southern US boarder with Anthrax and kill millions of people. And looks like they're going to. They're already here.

[Betruger]

And this is the point folks: these Jihadists, they get their notions of right and wrong from a book

Or cultural conditioning catalyzed by biological predisposition.

[tomclarke]

I don't need a Book to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

You do need a book to teach you right from wrong and just because you now hold some commitments to things you may or may not be able to rationalize as correct, does not mean you'd have gotten there on your own. And besides, you're list is shabby and incomplete. You still, even at this age, don't know right from wrong.

I was hoping somone would claim that. Tell the truth, I'm not sure whether it IS incomplete, but I don't think so. Find me an example of something wrong not on the list?

As for rationalising, I look at it the other way round. We all have some sense of right and wrong, and I would say that - in the case of people behaving as moral beings - not just enunciating prejudices - it has some pattern. Just as the way subatomic particles behave has some pattern.

[tomclarke]

PC out of control: http://twitchy.com/2014/09/01/rotherham ... -concerns/

As we get wiser we all come to realise, I believe, that societies - even apparently enlightened societies - allow great wrongs to go uncorrected in a way that seems extraordinary when examined, as it eventually is. This particular one is not one I could ever have shared - I've never believed in PC, nor in multiculturalism if that means allowing incompatible moral and legal systems to exist in subcultures here without challenge. In this case the acts were patently and very extremely against the law, so challenge is easy!

It is a human capacity for double-think we are all capable of to let this type of thing go without challenge. And the religious seem to be as good at doing it as anyone else.

Another example, in the UK but also other countries, is the evil done to our children by manipulating the financial system to keep asset prices artificially high. Of advantage to those who have assets (and I count myself amongst them to a large amount) but putting barriers in the way of those who do not. And, guess what, those with power are those with assets.

You might say that is just what always happens - and you'd be right - but the hypocrisy relevant to this discussion is that most people will argue themselves into a frame of mind where this financial extortion of one generation onto another is perfectly OK.

[GIThruster]

I was hoping somone would claim that. Tell the truth, I'm not sure whether it IS incomplete, but I don't think so. Find me an example of something wrong not on the list?

Tom, we could write back and forth thousands of pages on this subject. Out of all the fields in philosophy, by far the most complex and contentious is ethics. As a common sense realist in the tradition of G.E. Moore and Alvin Plantinga, I would stipulate from the start of any such discussion that one can't apprehend truths with any sort of moral dimension unless one has properly functioning noetic faculties, and amongst the requirements for such faculties are obedience to one's conscience, etc. One can't just pretend to be rational and expect to be ethical. So we're not going to have that sort of discussion.

I would however note to you the most obvious sort of omission on your very short list. The first 4 of the 10 Commandments concern Man's relationship to God. It's only the last 6 that concern Man's relationship to other men. You left off those first 4 entirely, and the way you have formed your model does not seem to me to easily extend into that domain.

See really, failing to worship God is at the very least a complete moral failing. There's no skirting round this.

[tomclarke]

Indeed. Your morality is not mine, and would correspond to what I've called prejudice.

Spirituality - the understanding that there is meaning to life and a sense of connectedness - those things are all encompassed within my rules.

But worship of an omniscient being? Nope.

You are on rather particular ground here, since different religions have decidedly different ideas about who should be worshipped. Just keep hold of your Book.

But you are guilty of confusion. You assume that obedience to conscience is not implied by my rules. I assert that it is. You would need to find a counterexample and the worship of a Hebraic God sure is not that. You also adduce from my posts that my morality is "pretending to be rational". Where have I said or implied that?

I've never studied Ethics - so I'll welcome correction. If it holds water.

I was hoping somone would claim that. Tell the truth, I'm not sure whether it IS incomplete, but I don't think so. Find me an example of something wrong not on the list?

Tom, we could write back and forth thousands of pages on this subject. Out of all the fields in philosophy, by far the most complex and contentious is ethics. As a common sense realist in the tradition of G.E. Moore and Alvin Plantinga, I would stipulate from the start of any such discussion that one can't apprehend truths with any sort of moral dimension unless one has properly functioning noetic faculties, and amongst the requirements for such faculties are obedience to one's conscience, etc. One can't just pretend to be rational and expect to be ethical. So we're not going to have that sort of discussion.

I would however note to you the most obvious sort of omission on your very short list. The first 4 of the 10 Commandments concern Man's relationship to God. It's only the last 6 that concern Man's relationship to other men. You left off those first 4 entirely, and the way you have formed your model does not seem to me to easily extend into that domain.

See really, failing to worship God is at the very least a complete moral failing. There's no skirting round this.

[GIThruster]

Indeed. Your morality is not mine, and would correspond to what I've called prejudice.

Not at all. Prejudice is the application of a generalization where that generalization is not specifically called for. The generalization that morality requires worship is completely called for. It is either true or not, but there is no unfounded generalization, nor is the thing intrinsically out of place.

I've never studied Ethics - so I'll welcome correction. If it holds water.

Doing ethics with no formal training is fraught with difficulties just as in any other field. Just handling the vernacular is a pain. For instance, the way you above as well as most of those who have never studied ethics; handle the concept of "absolute" is problematical because it presumes certain things about the term that are in the field, not taken to be true. The concept of an absolute is to say that the thing, normally a value; has at least transcendent being, much like one of Plato's forms. In other words, the concept of a triangle, or goodness, or the premise one ought not lie, have being whether we choose to believe them or not. So in this important sense the notion we ought not lie is an absolute. However, it is then still subject to qualification, such as in the case of a graded absolutist when they note that when values conflict, the moral choice is to support the greater value.

So for instance, I can tell you as a graded absolutist, that one ought not lie. If a madman with a bloody axe runs into the room and asks where my sister is, I'm going to tell him "she's down at the police station. You should go find her." Here we have a conflict between the general values "one ought not lie" and "one should defend the innocent". One grades these based upon their value and one's ability as provided by one's status and the healthy functioning of their noetic faculties. Note here, people who lie to themselves and others for selfish reasons, damage their noetic faculties. So what seems an obviously correct choice to most of us, will not so seem to someone who violates their conscience regularly.

And Tom, refusing to honor God, is a violation of conscience. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Faith is first, a moral choice. If you get that wrong, you're in poor shape to do any challenging ethics.

[Betruger]

And Tom, refusing to honor God, is a violation of conscience.

Your argument against Islam makes more sense in the light of this agenda. Against MSimon as well.

[Diogenes]

In one village in Irian Jaya for example, when the Gospel of forgiveness was first explained, the natives all at once erupted in applause and loud approval, but not when you'd think they would. It was when Judas betrays Christ with a kiss that they applauded. First time having it explained, they thought Judas was the hero! Well, it turned out to be a headhunter society. They glory in betrayal. The finest example of a headhunter in his element, is when he invites someone over for dinner, and then eats them. No joke.

So one has to wonder how anyone can put stock in any sort of Universal Morality, given the bewildering counter-examples. Rather, I think it is people whom have rebelled against what they perceive as a universal morality, whatever that is in their culture; that seem to believe there is anything universal to rebel against.

Exactly my point. Time and time again I hear from Libertarians that something is "Wrong", and the idea never seems to occur to them that different people have different ideas about what "Wrong" means.


They object to pedophilia because "It's against the law!" but they think that when Homosexuality was illegal, that the law was wrong, so it really isn't about what the "Law" defines as legal consent, it's about what *THEY* think ought to be legal consent. Again, subjective morality.


There *IS* no consensus outside of an agreed upon framework, and that "framework" used to be fairly standard Judeo-Christian doctrine.


Now it's a Potpourri of new age nonsense, ancient paganism and militant atheism with Islamic kookery thrown in as well.

[Diogenes]

I don't need a Book to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

Let us say that is true. Do you think that Others don't need a book to tell them what is right and what is wrong?



I argue that in the absence of a book, opinions on what is right and wrong will vary widely.


What *YOU* think is wrong, may not be what *OTHER* people think is wrong.


Slavery for example. A *LOT* of people have no problem with it at all. It is still being practiced right now in various parts of Africa and the Middle East. Same with boy molesting.



Do you not see the danger of allowing everyone to decide for themselves what is right or wrong?


Bear in mind, we can't base a standard on you. There just isn't enough of you to grace the rest of the world to the extent that you would be needed, so it's a lot simpler to just send a book.

[choff]

Last week two Egyptian ladies posted an online picture of themselves defiling an ISIL flag, apparently Lebanese Muslim youth have also been engaging in similar online activity. The beheading videos are probably creating 100 new apostates for every new convert.

[Diogenes]

You cannot be *for* and *against* morality at the same time.

So to take this (classic) example.

No, homosexuality is not per se wrong. However, if homosexual feelings are the result of some (all that Freudian stuff) reaction to childhood experience then they will not lead to the bonding etc that we all want. Which would appear sometimes to be the case, perhaps more so than for the case of heterosexual feelings - though these are equally capable of leading us astray as literature depicts for us over and over again.

However the P word (no point in giving fodder to the bots) is unconditionally wrong because it is inconceivable that a young child could be in anything other than an asymmetric power relationship with an adult over sex, and therefore we have something powerful in an asymmetric power relationship.

And this is persuasive about something? Are not women and men in an "Asymmetric Power" relationship? Are not slaves in an "Asymmetric Power" relationship?

What difference does it make if that is true?

The very strong taboo against this is perhaps because without civilisation it would happen quite a bit: with consequent bad genetic effects quite apart from morality - so there is perhaps some biological inhibition here to counter the otherwise strong biological attraction.

But that taboo is obviously not universal. And while sex with underaged girls might result in a genetic or mortality issue, it would seem less likely to be the case with underaged boys, given how extensive this practice has been in history and also currently today.

Back to the OP. Homosexuals who are not ignoring their own feelings (in some major way) would never support a campaign for free sex because they would understand the emotional vulnerability.

I do not grasp your comment. It is alien to my understanding. Homosexuals (as a general rule) are exceptionally promiscuous to an extent that is unimaginable in the Heterosexual community. Likewise many of them are emotional wrecks. Suicide is the prime cause of death among homosexuals.

But those (and heterosexuals) who were, probably through damage, too unable to understand their own feelings and therefore saw sex as being like sweets might do so. I think that characterising this as a "homosexual lobby" is overly generalising, and as such, like racism, harmful.

Again, I cannot grasp what it is you are trying to say here. I can't even hazard enough of a guess to even attempt a response.

[Diogenes]

As for rationalising, I look at it the other way round. We all have some sense of right and wrong, and I would say that - in the case of people behaving as moral beings - not just enunciating prejudices - it has some pattern. Just as the way subatomic particles behave has some pattern.

Sure, it has some pattern. The natural patter would appear to be genetic tribalism. People who look like us and act like us are members of our tribe, and should be treated somewhat like family, but people who do not look like us and act like us are alien, and should be regarded as dangerous enemies.



That is the *NATURAL* pattern. Then this Christianity stuff comes along and says we are all equal in God's eyes and that we are all brothers and stuff.


Very unnatural ideas those.

[Diogenes]

Indeed. Your morality is not mine, and would correspond to what I've called prejudice.

Prejudice is a survival trait. It's just nowadays regarded as bad because of past abuses.


If you are walking along and you see you are about to step across a snake, what do you do?


Do you assume it's venomous or not?



Being Non-Prejudiced will get you killed a sufficient percentage of the time to make the survivors naturally prejudiced through the consequences of evolution.

[Diogenes]

And Tom, refusing to honor God, is a violation of conscience.

Your argument against Islam makes more sense in the light of this agenda. Against MSimon as well.

And of course there is stuff like this:


Islamisten ziehen als „Scharia-Polizei“ durch Wuppertal


(Sharia Police are patrolling in Wuppertal)





Note the insignia on their vests?

Salafisten sind in Wuppertal mehrfach als „Scharia-Polizei“ aufgetreten und nachts durch die Straßen patrouilliert. Die Männer hätten orange Westen mit dem Aufdruck „Shariah Police“ getragen. Man habe ein Verfahren gegen elf Männer wegen Verstoßes gegen das Versammlungsgesetz eingeleitet und dazu ihre Personalien aufgenommen, sagte ein Polizeisprecher am Freitag. Die Islamisten im Alter von 19 bis 33 Jahren seien nicht festgenommen worden, es habe rechtlich auch keine Handhabe gegeben, die Westen sicherzustellen.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inla ... 37196.html