Morality

[PJMCC1UK]

i know i could watch this and enjoy it. But would still struggle to answer the points in the email ...

'' If morals are a result of social conditioning how can you then claim we are WRONG for invading Iraq, since as you put it yourself "we are the product of our own morals", your world is natural and natural only, no ultimate meaning, no ultimate values.....that IS YOUR WORLDVIEW ''

You claim a world that morals are based on social conditioning without a common source and then as soon as the opportunity presents itself like in a bar instantly claim that invading Iraq is....wait for it........WRONG!?!? ''

The invasion of Iraq was illegal. And we were mislead about why we were there. There are a mixture of reasons as to why it was wrong.

How was it illegal?
The questions of WMDs was secondary to me, a brutal dictator needed to be overthrown and it was done.
Yes, there was "interest's" involved, but for the greater good he and his henchmen had to go. imo.

They may have been secondary to you, but they were primary in the reasoning from the politicians.
That is what made it illegal. Whilst it may have removed a dictator,the people of Iraq weren't in politicians thoughts. And we have hardly replaced him with anything better. The greater good are getting blown up daily. U should have watched that docu on Iraq 10 years on.

 

[Skashion]

He has stated a few times that he will come to that. The debate at the moment is purely how an Athiest can judge Morality

I've told him and he ignores it. To me the harm principle is an absolute morality. If, by using your liberty, you rob someone of their right to liberty, it is a crime and needs to be punished. If not, there is no crime. It isn't perfect, it can't demand positive actions (though nor do the Ten Commandments), but it can demand no harm. As long as that is fulfilled, we are each free to follow our own path of morality, with that's tee-total celibacy or drug and alcohol fuelled homosexual orgies.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Would this be a Harissian justification for the invasion of Iraq.

The average life expectancy has increased every year since 2003.

http://www.nationmaster.com/time.ph...ctancy-birth-total-population&country=iz-iraq

Whilst there are other positive social developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21752819

Although it is a tricky situation to reasonably justify, it may be that the initial plans and intentions behind such an invasion were good just that the work after that failed to live up to its spirit.

This is where religion debate started, i always maintained and still do that the Iraq War was simply 'Wrong' for a number of reasons... mainly the lies, the motives etc

now he says why should i hold a moral view on this as im an Athiest

 

[VOOMER]

So basically Bluemooners, this is Mark85's vicar brother, using his account, for some reason he seems to be unable to create his own account and thus prevent Markt85 from looking like a Schizophrenic or a maniac.

So, basically, what this guy is talking about, which he has assumed his audience is aware of without naming it (so you can Google it) - a stupid idea in and of itself, is objective morality; the idea that morality isn't subjective but because it is God-given, it is absolute.

However, he seems to have missed out the points where supposedly the laws that are God-given are self-contradictory. So, assuming a God exists, one hell of an assumption, and assuming he has spoken to us on Earth through prophets, another big assumption, we've now got to work out what this self-contradictory twat wants. Apparently, we should not kill, but apparently we can also put people to death for many reasons, including stoning to death our children for being disobedient and for being a homosexual. So, it seems to me that objective morality is about as useful a a chocolate teapot. Can't prove the fucker exists, can't prove he spoke to us, and even if he did it's self-contradictory nonsense and hence is not useful.

Right, now, onto my version of morality. Human beings have power over their own bodies. A fact - unlike the existence of God, his prophets, and a tangible way to extract sense from a sea of self-contradiction. This means we should be judged by our individual actions. Extending on from this is the idea that, because we have freedom over own bodies, we should have freedom to do what we want with our own bodies, as long as we don't interfere with the freedom of other people to do the same. This idea was formulated by John Stuart Mill in the harm principle. Which says we can do what we want as long as we do not harm others. So there you go, you cannot kill, rape, or kidnap, hurt, or steal from someone because you are doing them harm. Meanwhile, you cannot stop homosexuals from having a relationship, taking drugs, engaging the services of a prostitute etc. because it doesn't harm anyone else by doing so. I'm quite happy to take my version of morality. I will say this isn't my only form of morality. My personal morality goes further and actually embraces many ideas purported to be those of Jesus Christ, including love, charity and forgiving people. However, the harm principle should be what the law is based on. It doesn't subscribe to the whims of any person. It cannot enforce my personal morality. It is absolute. If you harm someone, it's a crime. If you don't, it's not, even if it's questionable behaviour. Altruistic behaviour is unenforceable. It only demands no harm, and as I say, it is derivable from the fact that we as individuals control our own actions.

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.sky.com/story/1107954/keanu-williams-mother-jailed-for-boy-s-murder" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.sky.com/story/1107954/keanu ... y-s-murder</a>

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Would this be a Harissian justification for the invasion of Iraq.

The average life expectancy has increased every year since 2003.

http://www.nationmaster.com/time.ph...ctancy-birth-total-population&country=iz-iraq

Whilst there are other positive social developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21752819

Although it is a tricky situation to reasonably justify, it may be that the initial plans and intentions behind such an invasion were good just that the work after that failed to live up to its spirit.

This is where religion debate started, i always maintained and still do that the Iraq War was simply 'Wrong' for a number of reasons... mainly the lies, the motives etc

now he says why should i hold a moral view on this as im an Athiest

But that is absurd, some moral framework had to exist before religion or as he might put it Humans were aware of God, otherwise humans would not have got anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVXEmJRGns

 

[pominoz]

Would this be a Harissian justification for the invasion of Iraq.

The average life expectancy has increased every year since 2003.

http://www.nationmaster.com/time.ph...ctancy-birth-total-population&country=iz-iraq

Whilst there are other positive social developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21752819

Although it is a tricky situation to reasonably justify, it may be that the initial plans and intentions behind such an invasion were good just that the work after that failed to live up to its spirit.

I have worked with exiled Iragi's, they served in the war against Iran, wonderful men but had to leave to have a decent life.
They were Christian Iragi's, cod forbid they were Kurds.

 

[talkativesprout]

Would this be a Harissian justification for the invasion of Iraq.

The average life expectancy has increased every year since 2003.

http://www.nationmaster.com/time.ph...ctancy-birth-total-population&country=iz-iraq

Whilst there are other positive social developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21752819

Although it is a tricky situation to reasonably justify, it may be that the initial plans and intentions behind such an invasion were good just that the work after that failed to live up to its spirit.

I have worked with exiled Iragi's, they served in the war against Iran, wonderful men but had to leave to have a decent life.
They were Christian Iragi's, cod forbid they were Kurds.

I worked with a kurdish refugee mate, he too was a lovely man, his torture scars and the story of how his family were all butchered during the Hussain regime were a bit grim

 

[Bigga]

How was it illegal?
The questions of WMDs was secondary to me, a brutal dictator needed to be overthrown and it was done.
Yes, there was "interest's" involved, but for the greater good he and his henchmen had to go. imo.

Interesting.

You have conveniently explained away Iraq. So how come 'morality' doesn't extend to other 'dictators' wiping out their own people?? What about 'the greater good' for those people suffering?

You cannot use that argument fairly and not administer the same philosophy for everyone.

Yes i can, you knock a wall down one brick at a time.
Are you trying to justify or excuse the Hussein regime?
He gassed his own people.
Yes, there are other regimes that need to be overthrown, but we can not do all of them at the same time.

Nobody is justifying anything... except the reason to overthrow Hussein at the time it happened. There were/ are evil tyrants before and after him. Except the agenda to deal with these people are not as important.

Still waiting for action...

 

[cockneycarparkm32]

How was it illegal?
The questions of WMDs was secondary to me, a brutal dictator needed to be overthrown and it was done.
Yes, there was "interest's" involved, but for the greater good he and his henchmen had to go. imo.

Interesting.

You have conveniently explained away Iraq. So how come 'morality' doesn't extend to other 'dictators' wiping out their own people?? What about 'the greater good' for those people suffering?

You cannot use that argument fairly and not administer the same philosophy for everyone.

Yes i can, you knock a wall down one brick at a time.
Are you trying to justify or excuse the Hussein regime?
He gassed his own people.
Yes, there are other regimes that need to be overthrown, but we can not do all of them at the same time.

he gassed Kurds and other tribes , not HIS own people . Not condoning him they were human beings after all.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Interesting.

You have conveniently explained away Iraq. So how come 'morality' doesn't extend to other 'dictators' wiping out their own people?? What about 'the greater good' for those people suffering?

You cannot use that argument fairly and not administer the same philosophy for everyone.

Yes i can, you knock a wall down one brick at a time.
Are you trying to justify or excuse the Hussein regime?
He gassed his own people.
Yes, there are other regimes that need to be overthrown, but we can not do all of them at the same time.

he gassed Kurds and other tribes , not HIS own people . Not condoning him they were human beings after all.

This point is true and it highlights and contrasts the society and objective morality points well. The Kurds and the Shia were outside his society because they don't believe in his God (religious people are kinder to their own denomination) , also of course he needed the support of the Sunni minority to keep him in power. However he didn't have the harm principle or Harissian human well being principle in respect to any of his inner circle or people within his territory. I think most modern philosophers would regard society in the wider sense as inclusive of all humanity, but religious demagogues and dictators would almost certainly not.