tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post1109374106095283130..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: Why morality at all?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-4071372506563499212007-05-17T09:51:00.000+12:002007-05-17T09:51:00.000+12:00Brian, Like you I find what is considered...Brian,<BR/> Like you I find what is considered ‘the certain’ in many resects to be mundane yet others here would think this is some how a childish vanity, a denial of reason and science, and a denial of the importance of the mundane. (a false assumption made by those that worship it! Pascal would say these folk are ruled by custom not reason)<BR/>We both grasp the limits of human knowledge and certainty.<BR/>I guess that the physical existence of a computer and the knowledge that a cup of coffee is also within the bounds of being in the universe. That these very facts indicate the possibility of one becoming the other via some redistribution of their energy.<BR/>That we have no scientific grasp of the forces that maintain things in reality it is conceivable that some change in the unseen ultimate forces could cause a spontaneous redistribution of the computer into a cup of coffee and that there exists no reason in classical physics to prevent it. Eg the 1st law of thermodynamics is restricted to how the universe behaves while the ‘unknown’ ultimate forces remain constant.<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you a question about statistical probability.<BR/>To my understanding, while pure math says that something that is of mind boggling improbability it is still not certainly impossible yet in reality because of the limits of Time and Space that there is an unknown point on the ratio scale that possibility becomes impossibility as there is not enough time, space, matter, and energy to run the numbers.<BR/>And that this equals certainty.<BR/>From this I draw the utter insanity of some one like Dawkins who will hang his atheism and theory of evolution on ludicrous and in fact impossible odds simply to deny God!<BR/>The above is founded upon ultimate limits, and is without the concept of the miraculous power of Mind.<BR/> This brings me to notions of infinities.<BR/>Your Quantum mechanics requires the postulation of infinite multiple universe’s to come up with enough ‘space’ and ‘energy’ to fit it’s static’s into.<BR/>From this you arrive at your idea that ‘some where out there’<BR/>A random event is taking place that spontaneously makes a computer and spontaneously changes it into a cup of coffee.<BR/>Now to my mind an infinite number of universes of infinite variation of their physics is simply a Mad man’s dream!<BR/>With such a view of ultimate reality anything and everything becomes possible/ probable/ and ever certain!<BR/>This is insanity!<BR/>While I say that God is all powerful this is a far cry from saying everything imaginable is a certainty and in fact a reality!<BR/>I know that you math guys use math to arrive at your conclusions yet I also know you pick and choose the equations and enter arbitrary numbers to ‘boogie’ the math to come up with a sum. From this sum you deduce the implications.<BR/>Thus I am saying there is an arbitrary factor to your math which is where the problem must lay re: you conclusion of infinite universes.<BR/><BR/>I have said a lot here. Can you give me a few of the most important point of your view.<BR/>In your view where am I right and where am I wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-64994629732131160292007-05-17T02:27:00.000+12:002007-05-17T02:27:00.000+12:00Tim,Even in classical physics it is possible for a...Tim,<BR/><BR/>Even in classical physics it is possible for a computer to spontaneously turn into a cup of coffee. It's just that this type of event is exceedingly improbable (you need a awful lot of zeroes after the decimal point to express how improbable it is). <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think you grasp what I wrote about certainty and truth. <BR/><BR/>Another point I can make is that I can go along with Anon and say that I am certain that my computer will not turn into a cup of coffee. It is hardly an interesting claim and not one that is worth more than momentarily discussion. <BR/><BR/>I ask what can be asserted with certainty that is worth more than momentary discussion? <BR/><BR/>It is when we move the discussion into the realms of bigger picture explanation - why the universe allows computers and cups of coffee - that things get more complicated, interesting, and uncertain.<BR/><BR/>In summary, justificationists seek certainty. But to be certain of something proves nothing. Truth seekers look for error and regard certainty as irrelevent. <BR/><BR/>BTW: I am in no way a fan of the simulation argument!Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06850292025352036051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-83281302623551721872007-05-16T22:03:00.000+12:002007-05-16T22:03:00.000+12:00Brian, I am amazed that Quantum physics comes...Brian,<BR/> I am amazed that Quantum physics comes to the same conclusion as theology regarding the potential for miracles in that it is possible to turn a computer into a cup of coffee, yet I am staggered by the assertion that quantum physics asserts this is some sort of random event!<BR/>It is a principle of Christian doctrine that Christ made the universe and that by him all things consist....which puts the constancy of the laws of physics on the faithfulness and integrity of God Almighty. It is this all powerful trustworthiness of God over reality that Falafulu fisi mistakes as innate immutable properties of matter and thinks they eliminate God and miracles as impossible.<BR/><BR/>I hold that as God created the universe and maintains the integrity of the universe he can also manipulate it at will, which to men appear as miracles like turning water into blood.<BR/>That this shocks us is the very purpose of them! They declare "the finger of God! and are unnatural events! God could turn a computer into a human being by his super natural powers and dominion over reality but this is a far cry from your quantum theory and in my mind far more believable!<BR/><BR/>Forgive me for thinking you are crazy!<BR/>let me explain<BR/><BR/>A toaster is not a natural phenomenon.<BR/>A toaster only exists because of the intervention of intelligence.<BR/>Without that no toaster will exist ever! that is a fact of physics that even Falafulu fisi is right about!<BR/>(This is also what undoes the theory of evolution which attempts to defy this law and says complex mechanisms and life can build themselves. If Falafulu fisi comprehended this he would find himself staring at God! Falafulu fisi has let hate and atheist lies lead him to a contrdicton)<BR/>Thus the notion that a quantum flux can spit out such things and even greater things is to my mind impossible as the key ingredient of intelligence/ purpose is missing...end of story!<BR/>Thus like global warming, like the theory of evolution I assert that quantum physics is a phony even if I am a poor mathematician.<BR/>I have reason enough.<BR/>I believe a philosophy of science is much more reliable than crazy ideas like you have proposed via your numbers.<BR/>From my grasp you equate all the universeis the product of a random flux where as I hold the very opposite view that nothing is random but that all thing happen for a purpose.<BR/>I say your equations are wrong and have not factored in God/ intelligence.<BR/>And “The Simulation model” as PC would say simply pushes reality one step away from our grasp but does nothing to explain ultimate reality.<BR/>While I admit the invention of computers does demonstrate the principle you are saying we cannot prove is what we experience as reality…again I say computers themselves are the product of mind not random or blind nature and so even if your notion of a simulation is granted. It can only be done on the basis of God making the computer not random math.<BR/>Again I arrive at my first principle and again your theory is found to explain nothing<BR/>How say you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-42815496295813276162007-05-16T20:35:00.000+12:002007-05-16T20:35:00.000+12:00Anon,This is nothing in the laws of physics to pre...Anon,<BR/><BR/>This is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent the atomic particles in your computer spontaneously rearranging themselves and turning into a cup of coffee. Similarly, there is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent your brain spontaneously reconfiguring itself so that your visual system perceives a computer where there is a cup of coffee. These things are exceedingly improbable, but not impossible. [In fact, according to the multiple universes theory of quantum mechanics there are a Tiny proportion of universes where these things are happening right now]. <BR/><BR/>To take another scenario, there is nothing in the laws of physics to say that you are not a simulation running on a computer and that this world you are experiencing is a virtual world. In fact the laws of physics predict that universal quantum computers that can simulate reality to arbitrary degrees of accuracy are possible. I don't think we are living in a simulation, yet I cannot 100% rule it out. <BR/><BR/>So, according to our best theories of reality it is irrational to be 100% secure in the knowledge that your computer won't turn into a cup of coffee. Our best theories indicate that it is possible. <BR/><BR/>How certain can we be about our best theories of physical reality? Can you be 100% certain that, say, quantum theory and relativity will not be superseded by a better theory in the future? Of course not, so your initial assertion is just a load of inductivist garbage.Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06850292025352036051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58193181644436544502007-05-16T20:20:00.000+12:002007-05-16T20:20:00.000+12:00I concede that a computer is a computer and that b...I concede that a computer is a computer and that by itself it will never become a cup of coffee any more than a monkey will become a man and that laws of physics hold good under normal circumstances.<BR/>If this is what is called knowledge I embrace it.<BR/>If this knowledge is supposed to limit reality to physics then I oppose it!<BR/><BR/>Thus I agree with Anon to this extent and I challenge him/her to apply these physics to the theory of evolution and see they annihilate it!<BR/>From that position I say the whole of my argument can be seen on the horizon!<BR/> That is the existence of what you materialists call the super-natural...the mystical… what I call the ultimate truth.<BR/>Thus I maintain the limits of our knowledge. The limits but validity of science. The limits of certainty about the nature of reality… the shallowness of our sences which is as truthful as any person can be and to be in unison with all reality and the human condition.<BR/>Objectivists and Falafulu fisi confuse these distinctions into one wrong view of knowledge and reality. It is their undoing and reason for their mad absurdities.<BR/>As Bacon said Atheists focus on secondary causes. The theist looks to the first cause. <BR/>The ultimate truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-65175385038536529312007-05-16T13:52:00.000+12:002007-05-16T13:52:00.000+12:00Well I don't think Tim needs to be singled out. Mo...Well I don't think Tim needs to be singled out. Most of the posts on this thread show varying degrees of mysticism - some by people who have been around libertarianism and objectivism for some time. I have been quite surprised. <BR/><BR/>I think PC needs to re-calibrate his expectations...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-37777257493489412062007-05-16T12:18:00.000+12:002007-05-16T12:18:00.000+12:00Correction to my previous message. It should read ...Correction to my previous message. It should read as:<BR/><BR/><B>God turned waters in to blood</B><BR/><BR/>Here are some biblical verses for you Tim, to read and see how absurd the claims are:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.tagnet.org/cyberspace/Lessons/Fut-084/fut1-084.html" REL="nofollow">The Springs of Water Turned to Blood</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35999306385734012502007-05-16T12:09:00.000+12:002007-05-16T12:09:00.000+12:00Tim perhaps does deserve a Nobel Prize in absurd ...Tim perhaps does deserve a Nobel Prize in absurd argument. This is unbelievable. The man is clearly delusional. I am not surprised that PC has ceased to reply to any of Tim's garbage here.<BR/><BR/>Did you get what anon said, Tim? Here it is:<BR/><BR/><I>A thing is itself. A computer is a computer. A rock is a rock. To be, is to be *something*, as has been said on this blog many times.</I><BR/><BR/>In the bible, it mentioned that God <B>waters and turned it to blood</B>, just to punish the Pharaohs. This is a violation of Physics. Second it defies logic as pointed out by anon. That means according to you Tim, that <I>water is not water anymore</I>, but it can be <I>blood</I> at one stage if God say so.<BR/><BR/>You spewed out rubbish all the time here Tim with things that contradict Physics and Logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9144404611022369802007-05-16T11:55:00.000+12:002007-05-16T11:55:00.000+12:00Tim,I don't have 'faith' that my computer won't tu...Tim,<BR/><BR/>I don't have 'faith' that my computer won't turn into a cup of coffee - I am certain because I know that things are what they are. A thing is itself. A computer is a computer. A rock is a rock. To be, is to be *something*, as has been said on this blog many times. <BR/><BR/>This simple truth is the basis of all rational thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58765576475167920062007-05-16T10:37:00.000+12:002007-05-16T10:37:00.000+12:00Hamish, If you think about it Objectivism is...Hamish,<BR/> If you think about it Objectivism is utterly wrong because if we are merely products of matter and the morality was Objective in atheist reality as P.C claims.<BR/>Don’t you thing atheism would be the universal trait of mankind rather than religion?<BR/>would not atheism be the most natural of assumptions?<BR/>That the opposite is the case and that great lengths must be gone to arrive at atheism tells me atheism and objectivism are the most unnatural of human inventions!<BR/>This is beside the fact that Objectivism is objective in name only!<BR/>Its modus opperandi is definitively pragmatic and it's values mere selfish whims.<BR/>It differs from religious desire for a just world in that it hinges this desire upon "what’s in it for me" rather than and objective standard that upholds righteousness and condemns evil.<BR/>It is mere subjectivism!<BR/>The personal ego is not a valid foundation for objective morality whereas I hold morality to be more important than my own life and thereby would be willing to sacrifice myself for my highest values which are embodied in the mystical/ ethical ideals of such things as freedom, justice, love, truth, in the battle against the mystical realities of evil.<BR/>Murder is simply a form of death without and ethical meaning when divorced from Theological/transcendental/mystical truth.<BR/>The atheist has nothing but a psychological dislike for it, if he is right and we are but material soulless entities, but no real objective standard by which to morally condemn it!<BR/>Atheist 'morality' is psychology!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-34424802225984121842007-05-16T10:06:00.000+12:002007-05-16T10:06:00.000+12:00Anon, You are so sure of those things, Yet do ...Anon,<BR/> You are so sure of those things, Yet do you think a monkey can turn into a man? <BR/>Do you think space dust can become the human race?<BR/>Can you even tell the difference between a circle and a polygon?<BR/>Can you draw a strait line?<BR/>What shape would an absolutely strait line appear to us here on earth in space and time?<BR/>You live by mere appearances and assumptions!<BR/>You assume your computer wont turn into a cup of coffee.<BR/>You have faith that it will not do so .<BR/>Faith is founded in reason, in the case of your computers immutability, experience and a grasp of how our universe functions normally gives you the confidence that your faith has validity to the highest degree)<BR/>Science and repetition don’t give you absolute certainty.<BR/>Science is merely a guide.<BR/>Ultimately We cannot even tell whether a ruler stays the same length!<BR/>We have faith that a ruler does not change it’s length.<BR/>We perceive that even if we are wrong about that the consequences probably are irrelevant…maybe they are essential?<BR/>Atheism is the most baseless assumption of them all upon which all sorts of delusions and absurdities are founded!<BR/>I don’t think Brian was trying to deny our ability to make reasonable judgments and hold assumptions that work for us. <BR/>What I think he was saying is we must accept our limited capacities to know absolute truth.<BR/>Don’t go saying I am anti-reason here. I am pro- reason.<BR/>By my anti deification of science etc I am putting it in it’s rightful position where it is valid.<BR/>You are deluded if you think your certainty is any better founded than this post suggests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-88389755698860032582007-05-16T09:27:00.000+12:002007-05-16T09:27:00.000+12:00BS -- "Certain knowledge of morality, like certain...BS -- "Certain knowledge of morality, <B>like certain knowledge of anything,</B> is not possible."<BR/><BR/>Eh?<BR/><BR/>Right now I am typing on a computer. I am secure in the knowledge that the computer will not suddenly turn into a phone or a cup of coffee. If i shut down the computer and go for a walk, I am secure in the knowledge that my house will not turn into a car in my absence.<BR/><BR/>What is, is. What is not, is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-69081155413036944842007-05-16T09:03:00.000+12:002007-05-16T09:03:00.000+12:00Thanks Brian. I agree with what you said. If my ...Thanks Brian. I agree with what you said. If my previous comment appears at odds, then it was just my sloppy use of language. I have read Ayn Rand and I am a libertarian but not an objectivist. I wouldn't have used the terminology before, but I concur: The quest for JTB's is mistaken.<BR/><BR/>DaveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-56225941797920216772007-05-16T08:28:00.000+12:002007-05-16T08:28:00.000+12:00Dave,Certain knowledge of morality, like certain k...Dave,<BR/><BR/>Certain knowledge of morality, like certain knowledge of anything, is not possible. This does not mean there is no such thing as truth, it just means that we can never be sure we have it. Everything can be questioned: It is imperative that we look for flaws in our moral theories, for that is the only way we can improve them. <BR/><BR/>Clearly, theories of morality have improved over time. Good theories of morality, when taken seriously, lead to the improvement of all other forms of knowledge but also to better theories of morality. We could in fact state it as a moral principle that good theories of morality require that we try to improve them.<BR/><BR/>I should point out I am not an Objectivist, so the above is not the Objectivist view. Objectivists look for justified true belief and JTB's form the basis for their worldview, including their take on morality. Don't get me wrong - there is a lot to recommend in Objectivist morality - but the quest for JTB's is mistaken. As Karl Popper pointed out, the quest for certainty impedes the search for truth. Instead of trying to justify our beliefs, we should look for the flaws in our beliefs.Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06850292025352036051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-48464319200341052552007-05-15T22:41:00.000+12:002007-05-15T22:41:00.000+12:00James, TV liberty blog looks very interesting...James,<BR/> TV liberty blog looks very interesting.<BR/>I for one appreciate your digression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-77061777867606002512007-05-15T20:02:00.000+12:002007-05-15T20:02:00.000+12:00To expand a little: what it seems you are really s...To expand a little: what it seems you are <I>really</I> saying is that there is no such thing as subjectivity.<BR/><BR/>After all, if we [safely] assume that all emotion/perception/thought is a combination of chemical and electrical reactions which we fundamentally understand, all 'subjectivity' is really just an illusion in the mind.<BR/><BR/>Which, if you think about it, is the point - it's all just in the mind. Unfortunately, that's where we live.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-52142114263012342132007-05-15T19:58:00.000+12:002007-05-15T19:58:00.000+12:00Jebus - that's some long comments.I'm not going to...Jebus - that's some long comments.<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to try reading them all, but PC, since you bought up Dawkins I thought it worth commenting.<BR/><BR/>He puts forward the very sensible idea that Morality is an evolutionary trait and is, basically, a survival function for a social species.<BR/><BR/>So yes, ultimately, morality is objectively about life. But that does NOT make moral judgements objective ones.<BR/><BR/>To draw an analogy: emotions are an objective fact of being human (and, possibly, is a fact for some non-humans). But emotional responses are objective only in so much as we can determine that the chemical reactions within our minds elicits this or that reaction (ie, emotion). <I>What we feel</I>, however, becomes entirely subjective (almost by definition!).<BR/><BR/>Ironically, it would seem that morality is just an emotional reaction to the 'rules of thumb' of 'evolutionary ethics'. That leaves an awful lot of wiggle room and it is hardly surprising that so few people agree on what morality actually means for individuals.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's my 2c.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-41739557418501832942007-05-15T17:57:00.000+12:002007-05-15T17:57:00.000+12:00Is there such a thing as an inertial model of mora...Is there such a thing as an inertial model of morality?<BR/><BR/>That is to say that, morality is the sum of all the outrageous actions not taken becasue of fear, lack of money, and laziness.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10765006817084523046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-74758478220850262182007-05-15T16:24:00.000+12:002007-05-15T16:24:00.000+12:00Tim said...Falaful fisi From where does physics ta...Tim said...<BR/><I>Falaful fisi From where does physics take it's order?</I><BR/><BR/>From no-one, Tim. Can you prove that your God exist?<BR/><BR/><I>You have no Idea! Your living in a tiny box pal!</I><BR/><BR/>Tim, you're the one who is living in a tiny box. You don't see reality, all you see is your delusional mind.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You have the smallest conception of reality!</I><BR/><BR/>Yep, I do. Do you? It seems that you're living in a fantasy world.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>As for your issue regarding Dafur ...you are wrong that God did nothing and ask you to go back to that previous argument to see why.</I><BR/><BR/>Tim, yes fuck'n God is currently doing nothing. The killing is ongoing even right at this moment while I am typing. Where is your fuck'n loving God, to just may be appear from the Sky and stopped the killing or perhaps spoken directly to the killers and give some warning to stop. Where is fuck'n God Tim? You're deluded.<BR/><BR/><I>I will only add that God himself has suffered far more than you! He was crucified!</I><BR/><BR/>No, it wasn't God that was crucified. It was a human being named Jesus Christ. God, is above the laws of Physics and the material world according to you isn't it? So, why are you saying that some non-physical entity such as God suffers pain, in which pain is a physical phenomena that exists? Don't you see your view of reality is clearly a huge confusion for you? God, doesn't suffer, doesn't have sex, doesn't drink, doesn't shit, doesn't do anything like you and I do in everyday life. WHY? The answer is obvious, because God only exists in the delusional minds of people like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-86595978795937604152007-05-15T15:18:00.000+12:002007-05-15T15:18:00.000+12:00James you are The Noddy!You show how little you ac...James you are The Noddy!<BR/>You show how little you actually think!<BR/>Loving thy neighbor as they self means to judge THEM as you would expect them to judge YOU in every circumstance <BR/>eg when you help some one you appreciate them saying thanks and would take offence if they said piss off... thus when some one helps you...you ought to say thanks and not piss off! get it?<BR/>In the case of a child molester, If you yourself committed such a monstrous crime you would expect your neighbors to hang you from the nearest meat hook!... and so you can with justice and not hypocrisy judge a neighbor who commits such a crime as worthy of such a fate! Get it? <BR/>We have a justice system that is supposed to meet out punishment that suits the crime and so this Ideal system is in accord with the moral principle! (that the system falls short does not change the principle)<BR/>I am so tired of kiddie minded adults who could not think their way out of a wet paper bag!<BR/>I cannot expect the majority to grasp much of what I say as you have set your hearts against God and me his servant.<BR/>Only those with truly seeking souls will be enlightened by anything I say.<BR/>The rest of you are blinded by your own hate.<BR/>You have switched off your brains!<BR/>Any of you who say “I don’t believe in God because I cant see him” are so foolish as to have deemed their puny senses as omnipotent!<BR/>You are claiming nothing really exists that is outside their powers!<BR/>That is Mind numbingly foolish and arrogant!<BR/>I would give up and wash my hands of you if I thought you were without hope, yet I persevere in belief that perhaps just one soul will turn to Christ and be saved.<BR/>That one might be saved would be well worth the effort!<BR/>Secondly I must confess to needing dialogue myself so as to grow by exercising my principles and confronting new challenges.<BR/>Thus I don’t mind real criticisms, in fact I love them as they are interesting yet saying I support kiddy fuckers is way way bloody wrong dude! I don’t believe you actually even think that I could!<BR/>It must have been a criticism in bad taste! Very bad taste! I have thick skin but I expect others to do unto me as they would like me to do unto them!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-47958473534450646362007-05-15T14:09:00.000+12:002007-05-15T14:09:00.000+12:00PC I agree with most of what you have said. Howev...PC I agree with most of what you have said. However, I do wish to take issue with your position.<BR/><BR/>There surely is an absolute objective morality - we agree on that. Throughout history, people have claimed that they have attained certain knowledge of what values it incorporates. Yet looking back we can see that whilst there has been a broadly progressive improvement in understanding of morality, each generation has been mis-guided in various - now obvious - ways. This is nowhere more evident than amongst religious people who claim to have an absolute morality but change their values more often than Christina Agulera changes costumes. It is a good thing that humanity constantly strives to improve it's understanding of the objective world, including the moral sphere (this striving might reasonably be regarded as the highest value).<BR/><BR/>So now we come to 'objectivist' morality which claims once again to have certain knowledge of morality. How can you be certain that a handful of people alive today represent the end point of a process of refinement of ideas extending over the entire history of humankind? How can you be certain that objectivism will not be an irrelevant side road on the highway to our understanding of objective morality? Please be clear that I am not expressing relativism here. I am certain that some values are better than others, but not conceited enough to presume that I am absolutely right on all questions of value. Furthermore, I have a high degree of certainty that both of us are wrong on some such questions - only our descendents will have a clearer view of what we have judged correctly and where we have erred.<BR/><BR/>Dave ChristianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-74218191414596986052007-05-15T13:53:00.000+12:002007-05-15T13:53:00.000+12:00So Tim wants to love child molesters and rapists a...So Tim wants to love child molesters and rapists as much as decent law abiding people and how dare you judge between them based on the values you may gain or lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<BR/><BR/>Noddy...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-52901885434640572022007-05-15T13:38:00.000+12:002007-05-15T13:38:00.000+12:00By the way loving your neighbor as thyself is the ...By the way loving your neighbor as thyself is the principle of equality and respect of your neighbors Liberty as much your own! The very opposite of slavery.<BR/>It is to judge yourself by the same standard as you judge others!<BR/>P.Cs self interest has no real connection of concern for others that has no strings attached!<BR/>Objectivists are notoriously elitist as was Rand!<BR/>I am glad P.C does not practice what he preaches!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9033996154195582522007-05-15T13:15:00.000+12:002007-05-15T13:15:00.000+12:00Falaful fisiFrom where does physics take it's orde...Falaful fisi<BR/>From where does physics take it's order?<BR/>You have no Idea!<BR/>Your living in a tiny box pal!<BR/>You have the smallest conception of reality!<BR/>Like an ant.<BR/><BR/>As for your issue regarding Dafur we have already discussed that one earlier on another tread and so I say you are wrong that God did nothing and ask you to go back to that previous argument to see why.<BR/>I will only add that God himself has suffered far more than you!<BR/>He was crucified! The word excruciating was specially invented to describe that torture as no other word was found sufficiently horrible!<BR/>So he is not indifferent to suffering!<BR/>He is a witness of every evil!<BR/>He will see justice served!<BR/>Have faith!<BR/><BR/>I will also say that P.Cs morality is a-morality of the variety I described above when I talked about those who draw their motives out of a hat of self interest and are really motivated by such things as popularity and saving face etc and will lie when ever it suits them as they dot ewe anyone the truth!<BR/>All the methods available to make yourself happy and successful when you have no concern for others. When these folk practice free trade it is not because they are moral but because they perceive they can glean more wealth for other that way and use the politics of rights to guard their loot!<BR/>The claim that they respect the rights of others is merely necessary lip service again in self interest! <BR/>Why Rand hates Kant is because he exposes such A-morality of self-interest as a phoney! he said an action is only moral when it comes from a pure motive to duty! (duty to the universal moral code...<BR/>His code was equal to the theological axiom of 'love thy neighbor as thyself')<BR/>Rand sought to destroy that moral ethic and put self interest in it's stead!<BR/>She was a monster!<BR/><BR/>Moral souls hold rights to be good and respect their neighbors rights because they believe in duty to God that they ought to love thy neighbor as themselves!<BR/>The difference between Morality and Objectivism is the difference between love and objective truth vs covetousness and expedience!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-76322997107090850842007-05-15T12:45:00.000+12:002007-05-15T12:45:00.000+12:00Well said Amonymous: spot on! D'you fancy a co-wri...<I>Well said Amonymous: spot on! <BR/>D'you fancy a co-writing job? :-)</I><BR/><BR/>I am considered odd by most and rude by many. Often I am taken for an imbecile. So I have the right qualifications I guess...but no, I'll continue to chuckle lovingly in the comments ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com