| Go to page 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 (Next) |
|
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 3:24am
So the "discussion" is just a sounding board of personal opinions with no real collective. Whats right for one will be wrong for the other, so without consensus the point winds up moot.
The "discussion" also digresses into a judgment call on ones personality which may not have any basis in reality. As ones beliefs is guided by ones own experiences. So to judge without have come from the same background scues the judgment.
In light of these facts, I propose the elimination of this forum. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Just asking.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
Pakar Ilusi
Inner circle
4804 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 3:27am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 03:24, jdmagic357 wrote:
In light of these facts, I propose the elimination of this forum. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Just asking.
|
|
No.
You are wrong imo...
I disagree, with all that I have learnt from experience.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
Michael Daniels
Special user
Isle of Man
762 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 5:24am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 03:24, jdmagic357 wrote:
So the "discussion" is just a sounding board of personal opinions with no real collective. Whats right for one will be wrong for the other, so without consensus the point winds up moot.
The "discussion" also digresses into a judgment call on ones personality which may not have any basis in reality. As ones beliefs is guided by ones own experiences. So to judge without have come from the same background scues the judgment.
In light of these facts, I propose the elimination of this forum. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Just asking.
|
|
You are suggesting that moral relativism is an absolute truth - which is self-contradictory.
Mike
www.mindmagician.org | www.psychicscience.org
Jiggery Pokery | More Mind Magic | Three Easy Pieces | Mostly Perfect | Speed Dating | Trinities | Divinorum | Reversal Plus | Double Scam | Equirock
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25307 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 5:05pm
And given that most here don't (either own up to or actually) believe in magic, perhaps it would be better to close up the Café too?
So what's magical for you some may be right for others. And what's abusive to some might be wrong for most.
Discuss or disgust?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Pakar Ilusi
Inner circle
4804 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 5:12pm
Discuss, all the way.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 6:21pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 05:24, Michael Daniels wrote:
You are suggesting that moral relativism is an absolute truth - which is self-contradictory.
Mike
|
|
Can we at least agree that the concepts of right and wrong are subjective?
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25307 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 7:27pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 18:21, jdmagic357 wrote:...
Can we at least agree that the concepts of right and wrong are subjective?
|
|
As long as we also agree that we need to be careful about defining the context within which we wish to use the terms - okay they are subjective (and contextual).
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
HerbLarry
Special user
Poof!
732 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 7:33pm
I hear ya JD. I don't agree, but I hear ya. It is pointless most of the time.
Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is!
Mr Vibrating: It is not.
Man: Look, you just contradicted me.
Mr Vibrating: I did not.
Man: Oh you did!!
Mr Vibrating: No, no, no.
Man: You did just then.
Mr Vibrating: Nonsense!
Man: Oh, this is futile!
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
You know why don't act naive.
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25307 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 9:00pm
Things one uses to help children or exercise control don't tend to scale well into adult discourse.
If you go with stated values and contexts you can then refer to things like "fair/equitable" <=> "if that were me I'd feel it was okay too" or appeal to different scales of values in context, say where one might choose to put out a fire in one's home before writing an email to a friend to ask about some future event though both are "good things to do".
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
idomagic
Loyal user
Chad Wonder
248 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 10:53pm
Huh? Really? People have time for this? And for this so well thought out discourse... Sad, so very sad 
Chad Wonder (Chad Wonder Magic, Inc)
President SAM 37/IBM 131 (Mile high Magicians)
http://www.idomagic.com
http://www.ChadWonderMagic.com
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25307 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 10:58pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 22:53, idomagic wrote:
Huh? Really? People have time for this? And for this so well thought out discourse... Sad, so very sad
|
|
Philosophy anyone? Thousands of years of it.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
J-Mac
Inner circle
Ridley Park, PA
3099 Posts
|
Posted: May 10, 2011 2:27am
Love that sketch BTW, HerbLarry!
Jim
|
HerbLarry
Special user
Poof!
732 Posts
|
Posted: May 10, 2011 11:26am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-10 02:27, J-Mac wrote:
Love that sketch BTW, HerbLarry!
Jim
|
|
No you don't!
You know why don't act naive.
|
Steve_Mollett
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
2628 Posts
|
Posted: May 10, 2011 7:29pm
There's nothing wrong with discussing right and wrong.
Humanity has done so for ages.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 10, 2011 8:55pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-10 19:29, Steve_Mollett wrote:
There's nothing wrong with discussing right and wrong.
Humanity has done so for ages.
|
|
Just because people have done something for time and memorial, doesn't make it right. Can anybody remember slavery, and how long it's practice was condoned?
Bad argument.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25307 Posts
|
Posted: May 10, 2011 9:15pm
The notions of right and wrong are social constructs.
It is a part of social (ethos/morals/evolution) to decide and discuss what they will hold as right and wrong.
And it's an ongoing discussion.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
captain10
New user
14 Posts
|
Posted: May 10, 2011 11:02pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-10 20:55, jdmagic357 wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-10 19:29, Steve_Mollett wrote:
There's nothing wrong with discussing right and wrong.
Humanity has done so for ages.
|
|
Just because people have done something for time and memorial, doesn't make it right. Can anybody remember slavery, and how long it's practice was condoned?
Bad argument.
|
|
There is a huge difference between the discussion of something and the practice of it. The failure to openly discuss or acknowledge something can and does lead to bigger problems.
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 1:23am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-10 23:02, captain10 wrote:
There is a huge difference between the discussion of something and the practice of it. The failure to openly discuss or acknowledge something can and does lead to bigger problems.
|
|
No doubt. But surly time would never be the measure, of what's right or wrong? Except to argue "thems the times we live in" and I don't perceive it a good argument.
The rebuttal of course being "but the times they be a changing". If you see my point?
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
Michael Daniels
Special user
Isle of Man
762 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 5:33am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 18:21, jdmagic357 wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 05:24, Michael Daniels wrote:
You are suggesting that moral relativism is an absolute truth - which is self-contradictory.
Mike
|
|
Can we at least agree that the concepts of right and wrong are subjective?
|
|
Yes, concepts of right and wrong are subjective, but that does not mean that every subjective view is equally valid. Hitler believed that it was right to murder millions in the pursuit of an ideal of Aryan purity and supremacy but that does not make his view just as "good" as, say, a belief that all persons are created equal, or a commitment to universal justice. Moral philosophy aims to explore the ways in which we can judge some views of right and wrong as better than others. Not all moral philosophers agree on everything, but very few would argue that Hitler's moral views are just as acceptable as those of Martin Luther King.
Mike
www.mindmagician.org | www.psychicscience.org
Jiggery Pokery | More Mind Magic | Three Easy Pieces | Mostly Perfect | Speed Dating | Trinities | Divinorum | Reversal Plus | Double Scam | Equirock
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 7:01am
Mike, I agree with everything you said and see the argument clearly. However, and understand that my view on this issue is equal to yours, I would contend that to those who participated in the atrocities of the second world war, would have believed and to this day possibly believe that their actions were right.
Subjectively it seemed like a solution to a problem, in fact the final solution.
Again, I in no way shape or form think that their actions were right and in fact see them as wrong but that is my subjective view and has nothing to do with what in fact IS right and wrong.
The other problem with discussions that limit ones responses to absolutes, is that the middle ground has no foundation to stand on, there by forcing an all or nothing kind of debate. With no room for the gray areas how can an intelligent debate and or argument be formed?
I'm not being difficult or playing devils advocate, although I do sometimes, I'm seriously concerned about the topic, and it's ramifications as it relates to our sense of omnipotence in the magic community.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
Steve_Mollett
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
2628 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 7:43pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-10 20:55, jdmagic357 wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-10 19:29, Steve_Mollett wrote:
There's nothing wrong with discussing right and wrong.
Humanity has done so for ages.
|
|
Just because people have done something for time and memorial, doesn't make it right. Can anybody remember slavery, and how long it's practice was condoned?
Bad argument.
|
|
The response isn't much better.
It implies that discussing right and wrong is wrong, perpetuating the discussion.
But hey, that was the subject, wasn't it?
So...would it be right or wrong to ban the discussion of right and wrong.
feel free to discuss. 
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25307 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 8:28pm
It's good to be right with yourself.
Being right with others might not be such a good thing.
It might be useful to own your own opinions and beliefs.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
jfquackenbush
Special user
Out here on the desert
581 Posts
|
Posted: May 14, 2011 10:11am
Philosophers of ethics are divided on the question of whether more principals are subjective. I for one don't think they are. They arise from facts about the world and facts about human beings and the way we've developed in society with one another. There may be some play in the joints about how a particular principal is applied in a given society, but the principals of meta-ethics exist independently of any one person's subjective experience of the world.
As such, the discussion of ethics is not only right, it's necessary. It's the sort of social activity that allows people an opportunity to observe those principals in practice and make reasoned judgements about how to apply moral principles and whether some asserted principal is in fact an objective one, or merely some principal that's been invented by someone for some purpose other than the pursuit of the best society.
Mr. Quackenbush believes that there is no such thing as a good magic trick.
|
PaulBanda
New user
4 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2011 11:54am
So the "discussion" is just a sounding board of personal opinions with no real collective. Whats right for one will be wrong for the other, so without consensus the point winds up moot.
It never can hurt to bring information and issues to light, but it is up to us to do our own investigations and use a rational and objective approach to assess these issues amongst each other..
I agree with Quakenbush!
|
Bapu
Regular user
with a paltry
159 Posts
|
Posted: Oct 3, 2011 7:28pm
Holy cow
Bapu practices law and conjuring in the Great Smoky Mountains of East Tennessee.
|
stoneunhinged
Inner circle
Göttingen
3005 Posts
|
Posted: Oct 4, 2011 10:00am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-14 10:11, jfquackenbush wrote:
Philosophers of ethics are divided on the question of whether more principals are subjective. I for one don't think they are. They arise from facts about the world and facts about human beings and the way we've developed in society with one another. There may be some play in the joints about how a particular principal is applied in a given society, but the principals of meta-ethics exist independently of any one person's subjective experience of the world.
As such, the discussion of ethics is not only right, it's necessary. It's the sort of social activity that allows people an opportunity to observe those principals in practice and make reasoned judgements about how to apply moral principles and whether some asserted principal is in fact an objective one, or merely some principal that's been invented by someone for some purpose other than the pursuit of the best society.
|
|
+ 1
An idealistic, obsequious, sycophantic Mai-Ling kisser-upper....
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25307 Posts
|
Posted: Oct 4, 2011 5:04pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-14 10:11, jfquackenbush wrote:
Philosophers of ethics are divided on the question of whether more principals are subjective....
|
|
Such are those who seem not to understand that when two people have a pie it's the one with the knife who decides what the other one will get.
Shirley understands that what is right for a zebra might not be right for a lion, yet there they are and have been for a very long time.
So is it right to wash your hands, flushing away all those microorganisms - or perhaps you go all the way to convince yourself that they went on to a better place?
Just curious, George.
Or was that exposure because you were supposed to buy my ebook?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
LobowolfXXX
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1602 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 10, 2011 3:51am
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-04 10:00, stoneunhinged wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-14 10:11, jfquackenbush wrote:
Philosophers of ethics are divided on the question of whether more principals are subjective. I for one don't think they are. They arise from facts about the world and facts about human beings and the way we've developed in society with one another. There may be some play in the joints about how a particular principal is applied in a given society, but the principals of meta-ethics exist independently of any one person's subjective experience of the world.
As such, the discussion of ethics is not only right, it's necessary. It's the sort of social activity that allows people an opportunity to observe those principals in practice and make reasoned judgements about how to apply moral principles and whether some asserted principal is in fact an objective one, or merely some principal that's been invented by someone for some purpose other than the pursuit of the best society.
|
|
+ 1
|
|
+ another.
The fact that the question of who is right and who is wrong when two people have contradictory moral opinions cannot be proven doesn't imply that neither of them is wrong.
-DFO
"All I wanted to do was work with John for the rest of my life."
LSAT tutor & author of "LSAT 60 Dissected," available online.
|
LobowolfXXX
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1602 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 10, 2011 3:54am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-11 07:01, jdmagic357 wrote:
Mike, I agree with everything you said and see the argument clearly. However, and understand that my view on this issue is equal to yours, I would contend that to those who participated in the atrocities of the second world war, would have believed and to this day possibly believe that their actions were right.
|
|
However, their subjective belief that they were right is entirely incidental to the question of whether or not they were actually right.
-DFO
"All I wanted to do was work with John for the rest of my life."
LSAT tutor & author of "LSAT 60 Dissected," available online.
|
writeall
Special user
Midland, Michigan
515 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 28, 2011 7:51pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 05:24, Michael Daniels wrote:
You are suggesting that moral relativism is an absolute truth - which is self-contradictory.
Mike
|
|
How so? Morality can be relative and subjective without all statements about it being relative. The absolute truth may be that morality is relative -- no contradiction at all.
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Why disscussing right and wrong is wrong. |
|
|
| Go to page 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 (Next) |
![[8]](/forums/images/digits/8.gif)
![[3]](/forums/images/digits/3.gif)
![[0]](/forums/images/digits/0.gif)
![[7]](/forums/images/digits/7.gif)
![[5]](/forums/images/digits/5.gif)
![[9]](/forums/images/digits/9.gif)
![[1]](/forums/images/digits/1.gif)
![[2]](/forums/images/digits/2.gif)