Beliefs, Non-Beliefs, Worldviews and Philosophy v2.0

[aj1701]

While I agree with you, I just want to point out that the law isn't always morally correct. For example, interracial marriage was illegal for several decades; didn't make it right. It's easy to look with a 21st century lens and forget that in the past stealing may have been the only viable option to maintain food for your family.

It's like the 'medicine' problem. You're mother/partner/loved one is severely ill. There is a medicine which will cure them of their ailment however it costs way too much money and even if you took out a loan, sold your house and borrowed money from friends you wouldn't be able to afford even half of it and the pharmaceutical company will not supply the drug for cheaper nor are you able to obtain charitable help. You live near the manufacturer and know a security guard who would turn a blind eye if you paid him off. Do you steal the medicine?

When you pose this problem to children you will almost certainly get a, "No, stealing is wrong," response. However adults are able to understand the nuances to this ethical dilemma.

Yes the law and morals aren't always equivalent, however laws against stealing and murder don't really have a history of being in conflict with morals.

As far as your medicine question goes, no, id not steal it. The problem is that if its ok for one person in this situation to do so its ok for everyone. If a significant number of people go the stealing route, it seems pretty unfair to those being honest. why shouldn't they just steal it too? the question then is why not give it to everyone free? I'm sure you see the problem with that; the reality is that "evil drug companies" are really mostly made up of normal people who also need to earn a living.

Please don't imply that I dont understand the nuances of this dilemma, I do. I'm just more concerned with the big picture of keeping at stable society/ civilization, which has improved the lives of millions in this would.

 

[Pan1cMode]

The nuances dont really change the fact that most people will agree it is wrong. The problem is if you are stealing food or medicine you are taking it away from someone else. Theoretically you could make sure to steal food from a rich person who doesnt need it but chances are if you stole the medicine you would be keeping someone else from getting cured as well.

Stealing medicine from a big manufacturer isn't the same as stealing it from an individual. You are not preventing someone else from getting the medicine, they'll just manufacture more.

Yes the law and morals aren't always equivalent, however laws against stealing and murder don't really have a history of being in conflict with morals.

As far as your medicine question goes, no, id not steal it. The problem is that if its ok for one person in this situation to do so its ok for everyone. If a significant number of people go the stealing route, it seems pretty unfair to those being honest. why shouldn't they just steal it too? the question then is why not give it to everyone free? I'm sure you see the problem with that; the reality is that "evil drug companies" are really mostly made up of normal people who also need to earn a living.

Please don't imply that I dont understand the nuances of this dilemma, I do. I'm just more concerned with the big picture of keeping at stable society/ civilization, which has improved the lives of millions in this would.

I want to preface this with the fact that I think you do understand the nuances of this problem, but I want to point a few things out.

Firstly, no, big pharma aren't individuals, nor are they evil. By this I mean they're a corporation first. Equating them with the local 'Mom and Pop' or a single worker is rather disingenuous. They're corporations made to run a profit which is given to certain individuals who make millions.

Secondly, your slippery slope argument doesn't add up. No, if you can afford the medicine you shouldn't steal it. Yes the medicine should be free. In fact, that system is called socialised health care which for some reason the U.S. seems to be vehemently against. One individual stealing medicine doesn't mean everyone should or will steal the medicine too. Health care is a basic human right. Or are you saying only those who can afford to pay deserve health care?

 

[The_REAL_xVAPORx]

Billions of people before you also believed the earth was flat; they were all wrong. You need to step-up your critical thinking skills: http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-popularity/

Lol I think my critical thinking skills are sufficient, feel free to question my logic rather than my personal stance. I believe what I believe based on my own findings, not cause it happens to be the largest and most widely supported belief in documented history. While sheer number of supporters does not in itself provide conclusive evidence of something being factual, you can't deny it heavily supports an argument.

 

[The_REAL_xVAPORx]

The satan (hasatan) was never kicked out of heaven. That's not in the torah or the bible. There is no devil in the old testament(torah). The god in the old testament has no rival in power, which is why there is no devil. Hasatan is not a devil or a demon, he is god's prosecuting attorney.

Except the scripture in revelation stating satan and his demons were cast out of heaven. And I don't know how he can be compared to an attorney when he directly challenged god, stating his servants were faithful out of fear or in expectations of miraculous blessings, plus he is referred to as "the father of the lie" multiple times in the scriptures. And if the fruit was referring to one specific sexual act, that would infer that EVERY other sexual act was condoned (all these trees you may eat from, but you must not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" but the bible clearly a states that there is multiple sexual acts that fall under the fornication , sexual immorality category.

 

[Euphoric]

What's everyone's views on love, relationships and the opposite or same gender for you? I know different experiences can lead to different beliefs, I know girls can turn to sex and have their "phase" if they've been hurt badly, and I know guys can have a negative view toward women too because of the shadyness of todays culture.

What happened to romance? Has sex desensitized everyone on the view of romance that everyone now a days (or at least in my experience), plays games with one anothers feelings, or are always unsure of commitment or their own feelings. So I think it's a cycle where everyone just hurts each other and than we just end up in a distrustful society, where people neglect or not care for people and it just ends up in this giant mess, where girls are whore and guys are players.

 

[Peckapowa]

What's everyone's views on love, relationships and the opposite or same gender for you? I know different experiences can lead to different beliefs, I know girls can turn to sex and have their "phase" if they've been hurt badly, and I know guys can have a negative view toward women too because of the shadyness of todays culture.

What happened to romance? Has sex desensitized everyone on the view of romance that everyone now a days (or at least in my experience), plays games with one anothers feelings, or are always unsure of commitment or their own feelings. So I think it's a cycle where everyone just hurts each other and than we just end up in a distrustful society, where people neglect or not care for people and it just ends up in this giant mess, where girls are whore and guys are players.

I think your view on relationships can be very truthful, we have very possessive and vengeful mentality overall, and liek any sort of victimization, victims will relive and perpetuate their own abuse as a means of desensitization from trauma and combating their feelings of powerlessness by feeling powerful. Things like this are contagious thus cause a chain reaction or an exponential effect. (those who are abused as children often perpetuate that abuse unto others)

I believe that we are biologically predisposed to desire an emotional connection when it comes to sex, not necessarily for an eternity, but if you remove the emotional connection you are in general bottlenecking sex and creating an addictive environment for yourself in which sex is utlitized to replenish esteem, but not to actualize in the eyes of someone else and fulfill the self. In society we trivialize emotion but in reality piss-poor emotional health is infectious and lowers our own abilities as a society to maintain positive and/or fit qualities. We need that connection, or otherwise in the long-run actualization will not be achieved and we will constantly battle for self-esteem.

Something i would illustrate this would be similar to cocaine use, when coming down from cocaine, your dopaminic levels lower and thus to recreate the experience you desire more, so it creates an addictive experience in which you start coming down harder and harder and needing more and more. Self esteem is similar and in my opinion it is intertwined with sex because nature's intended purpose is to be the most sexually fit we can.

 

[Peckapowa]

You never specified any context at all. You can't have a functioning society where people can rationalize things away when its convenient. And id wonder the same of third world people as some first; if you can't feed yourself, why are you bringing kids into the world? Of course that's the biggest problem in the third world, war lords that rationalize their behavior and keep the country poor by robbing from everyone.

To attribute an entire problem to a populus does not work on an individual level, a lot of these people were born into this, and these things are a collective thing, and there is a huge disconnect between that and one's individual morality. The fictional show "the walking dead," in my opinion illustrates how morality warps under struggling conditions. What if you are struggling and you steal from your enemy one who has assaulted you???? Can you afford to be open?? Can you afford to attempt to reach peace?? What if you stole weaponry to protect it because you were aware of a dangerous person and the law didn't have the means to dearm that person??? You also have to factor that under harsh circumstances sex is pretty much the number one method of coping...



While i agree false rationalize and a lack of logical thinking plagues humanity because the average individual lacks the emotional consitution to stomach hardfought introspection and objective thinking. I think your particular assestment is kind of narrow in itself...

 

[Peckapowa]

Stealing medicine from a big manufacturer isn't the same as stealing it from an individual. You are not preventing someone else from getting the medicine, they'll just manufacture more.


I want to preface this with the fact that I think you do understand the nuances of this problem, but I want to point a few things out.

Firstly, no, big pharma aren't individuals, nor are they evil. By this I mean they're a corporation first. Equating them with the local 'Mom and Pop' or a single worker is rather disingenuous. They're corporations made to run a profit which is given to certain individuals who make millions.

Secondly, your slippery slope argument doesn't add up. No, if you can afford the medicine you shouldn't steal it. Yes the medicine should be free. In fact, that system is called socialised health care which for some reason the U.S. seems to be vehemently against. One individual stealing medicine doesn't mean everyone should or will steal the medicine too. Health care is a basic human right. Or are you saying only those who can afford to pay deserve health care?

Some people would argue that health care is not a basic human right. There is an argument to be had to save our race it might be logical to eliminate people...

 

[Peckapowa]

Lol I think my critical thinking skills are sufficient, feel free to question my logic rather than my personal stance. I believe what I believe based on my own findings, not cause it happens to be the largest and most widely supported belief in documented history. While sheer number of supporters does not in itself provide conclusive evidence of something being factual, you can't deny it heavily supports an argument.

Well this is a dangerous argument because the majority of people believed in a specific area that jews were the reason for their suffering and they thought it was acceptable to murder them and view them as subhuman.

 

[Peckapowa]

While I agree with you, I just want to point out that the law isn't always morally correct. For example, interracial marriage was illegal for several decades; didn't make it right. It's easy to look with a 21st century lens and forget that in the past stealing may have been the only viable option to maintain food for your family.

It's like the 'medicine' problem. You're mother/partner/loved one is severely ill. There is a medicine which will cure them of their ailment however it costs way too much money and even if you took out a loan, sold your house and borrowed money from friends you wouldn't be able to afford even half of it and the pharmaceutical company will not supply the drug for cheaper nor are you able to obtain charitable help. You live near the manufacturer and know a security guard who would turn a blind eye if you paid him off. Do you steal the medicine?


When you pose this problem to children you will almost certainly get a, "No, stealing is wrong," response. However adults are able to understand the nuances to this ethical dilemma.

Some medicine doesn't become legal until years after it is created. What if you need that medicine??? It's impossible to create law and have it be perfect. In a perfect society there would be no law, no need for it, people would be brought up in a way that if anyone was struggling they would empathize and find a way to correct.

 

[Peckapowa]

Stealing to feed your family is still wrong, and it doesn't matter who you stole from. This is called rationalization, and you can rationalize any bad behavior to try and justify it. And there are typically legal ways to feed your family.

Just because a situation doesn't occur to you or me, doesn't mean there isn't a situation where you could argue stealing is okay. Morality isn't confined to everyday life, it is every possible situation in life. For the record, we rationalize every decision "right" or "wrong." If i ever find a situation to where i think stealing is my best option, or it necessary.... if it is necessary for my survival/others i am closest to then i will do it and survive. Under the religion we originally discussed this might not apply but i think it is a horrible idea to follow things black and white.

If you trust the law entirely and society entirely then i think that is naive, in the end you can only trust yourself and those close to you. Are you aware of Civil Forfeiture???? Police officers are able to put objects on trial where they are "guilty until proven innocent" and claim people's assets. There are so many flaws in law and actions that are enabled, that is why we have law and morality. On a philosophical level people debate this, and socrates believed in following the law to a tee but who knows what he might think in today's world.

 

[Peckapowa]

You never specified any context at all. You can't have a functioning society where people can rationalize things away when its convenient. And id wonder the same of third world people as some first; if you can't feed yourself, why are you bringing kids into the world? Of course that's the biggest problem in the third world, war lords that rationalize their behavior and keep the country poor by robbing from everyone.

and those who are robbed from shan't forcefully reclaim said resources???

 

[The_REAL_xVAPORx]

Well this is a dangerous argument because the majority of people believed in a specific area that jews were the reason for their suffering and they thought it was acceptable to murder them and view them as subhuman.

i was actually considering this, but it was by no means a "majority" (relatively speaking) atleast not anywhere outside certain parts of Europe. there was definitely a larger number of people that supported slavery than those that believed in killing jews. despite large numbers of people having been wrong in the past, it hasnt stopped the modern judicial system from deciding an individuals fate through a majority vote in the absence of conclusive evidence.

 

[Fromundaman]

My general worldview can be summarized in a single Disney song:

 

[Peckapowa]

i was actually considering this, but it was by no means a "majority" (relatively speaking) atleast not anywhere outside certain parts of Europe. there was definitely a larger number of people that supported slavery than those that believed in killing jews. despite large numbers of people having been wrong in the past, it hasnt stopped the modern judicial system from deciding an individuals fate through a majority vote in the absence of conclusive evidence.

relative to a specific area, the majority believed in killing jews and a normal person would be surrounded by a majority. Within the confines of the nation the majority believed or atleast followed that notion. there wasn't as much outside influence, a normal person in germany woudl be subject to that majority of belief.

you can be a room of 15 people and the majority believe that an alien pooped out humans onto earth and that is still a majority to that particular system.

 

[Fractured_Shadow]

Except the scripture in revelation stating satan and his demons were cast out of heaven. And I don't know how he can be compared to an attorney when he directly challenged god, stating his servants were faithful out of fear or in expectations of miraculous blessings, plus he is referred to as "the father of the lie" multiple times in the scriptures. And if the fruit was referring to one specific sexual act, that would infer that EVERY other sexual act was condoned (all these trees you may eat from, but you must not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" but the bible clearly a states that there is multiple sexual acts that fall under the fornication , sexual immorality category.

Dude....you can't gracefully bow out of a thread and then come back and write a novel. You are like GreenDay, "No guys, seriously. This is REALLY our farewell tour. We were just kidding last time. BUY OUR TICKETS!"

 

[aj1701]

Firstly, no, big pharma aren't individuals, nor are they evil. By this I mean they're a corporation first. Equating them with the local 'Mom and Pop' or a single worker is rather disingenuous. They're corporations made to run a profit which is given to certain individuals who make millions.

Mom & pops are businesses (and unless they are a sole proprietorship, they are corporations as well, in fact I own a business, I am its only employee, but its an LLC) which is also run to turn a profit as well. Any business, big or small, that doesn't turn a profile will not be around very long. The only real difference is the number of people they employ. If you think only the CEOs are making money at drug companies, you're sadly mistaken. There are a number of high paying jobs there, the most obvious of which are the researchers themselves. Creating a new drug is HUGELY expensive; you have to pay people to come up with the idea, develop it, go through animal trials, human trials, and a bunch of FDA regulations. All that money goes to those people involved, not the CEO.

Secondly, your slippery slope argument doesn't add up. No, if you can afford the medicine you shouldn't steal it. Yes the medicine should be free. In fact, that system is called socialised health care which for some reason the U.S. seems to be vehemently against. One individual stealing medicine doesn't mean everyone should or will steal the medicine too. Health care is a basic human right. Or are you saying only those who can afford to pay deserve health care?

How do you justify some people paying while saying others should get it for free? How is that fair? The person that works and contributes pays but the person that doesn't gets it for free? Not actually for free, the person that works also pays for the other person. Socialized healthcare is not free; its paid for by people going to a job everyday and paying taxes. It also forces a race to the bottom. Just look at the policies in the exchanges; you pay a lot and get very little, compared to most employer sponsored plans.

If one person stealing medicine doesn't mean everyone should, then how many would be ok to allow in your mind?

Have you ever heard the expression "your right to swing your fist ends at my face?" Does one's right to free speech mean that other people must contribute to that person to enable it? Buy paper, give free air time on TV stations? Is a newspaper obligated to print my opinion piece? Am I obligated to listen to the guy on a soap box in a public park? If I don't, do you consider me violating his right to free speech by refusing to listen? If not, why is my refusal to pay for someone else's healthcare infringing on their right to it? Is a doctor expecting to be paid for his services infringing on another's rights by taking payment?

 

[Temjiin]

Read 'The God Delusion' and then evaluate why you're wasting your short insignificant life worrying about just one of thousands of man-made gods and rules that you happened to be born into.

 

[Pan1cMode]

Mom & pops are businesses (and unless they are a sole proprietorship, they are corporations as well, in fact I own a business, I am its only employee, but its an LLC) which is also run to turn a profit as well. Any business, big or small, that doesn't turn a profile will not be around very long. The only real difference is the number of people they employ. If you think only the CEOs are making money at drug companies, you're sadly mistaken. There are a number of high paying jobs there, the most obvious of which are the researchers themselves. Creating a new drug is HUGELY expensive; you have to pay people to come up with the idea, develop it, go through animal trials, human trials, and a bunch of FDA regulations. All that money goes to those people involved, not the CEO.



How do you justify some people paying while saying others should get it for free? How is that fair? The person that works and contributes pays but the person that doesn't gets it for free? Not actually for free, the person that works also pays for the other person. Socialized healthcare is not free; its paid for by people going to a job everyday and paying taxes. It also forces a race to the bottom. Just look at the policies in the exchanges; you pay a lot and get very little, compared to most employer sponsored plans.

If one person stealing medicine doesn't mean everyone should, then how many would be ok to allow in your mind?

Have you ever heard the expression "your right to swing your fist ends at my face?" Does one's right to free speech mean that other people must contribute to that person to enable it? Buy paper, give free air time on TV stations? Is a newspaper obligated to print my opinion piece? Am I obligated to listen to the guy on a soap box in a public park? If I don't, do you consider me violating his right to free speech by refusing to listen? If not, why is my refusal to pay for someone else's healthcare infringing on their right to it? Is a doctor expecting to be paid for his services infringing on another's rights by taking payment?

I know the cost and processes associated with bringing a new drug to market. I studied it extensively as my undergrad major was Pharmacology. I also know that the high management of these companies (CEOs, board of directors, marketing officers) make millions.

Socialised health care does not create a race to the bottom. It works perfectly well in Canada, Australia and New Zealand so your argument is demonstrably false.

Again you're arguing with the slippery slope fallacy. Just because I would advocate one person stealing life saving medication that they would otherwise have no possible way to access doesn't mean I advocate everyone stealing the medicine; nor theft in general. It's like if you believe in instituting the death penalty for serial rapists/murders, it doesn't mean you think murdering random citizens is ok. The two are completely different situations with completely different contexts.

I understand the analogy you are trying to draw with free speech but the UN charter of rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It does not say anything about others being forced to listen, or having to provide them with a platform from which they can share their ideas.

Medical care on the other hand;

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including ... medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Notice how this specifically states that medical care shouldn't be denied if he can't afford it? In this case, it would be morally justifiable to steal the medicine.

The argument against socialised health care is so morally repugnant and logically backward it's almost laughable. The wealthy depend on a healthy proletariat class in order for them to build and maintain their wealth. At the same time, there is this refusal to help those who desperately need it, even though in the end it only serves to help the wealthy. Sick workers mean reduced productivity which means increased expenditures which means reduced profits. It should be in the wealthy class' best interests to institute some form of socialised health care but no, "I've got mine so fuck the rest!" The irony of it all is, Americans actually spend more money per-capita on health than Australia, Canada and New Zealand and still aren't able to provide an equitable and working distribution of health care services.

 

[The_REAL_xVAPORx]

Dude....you can't gracefully bow out of a thread and then come back and write a novel. You are like GreenDay, "No guys, seriously. This is REALLY our farewell tour. We were just kidding last time. BUY OUR TICKETS!"

bro..... do you even F3?

 

[Fractured_Shadow]

bro..... do you even F3?

Not in a while. Ive been doing much more BF2

 

[haketh]

http://www.whitenessproject.org/checkbox

White people we gotta talk

 

[Soul Bound X]

So, Sam Harris and Bill Maher have sparked a debate. They think Islam is the worst religion in the world right now. The most dangerous and should be criticized more than the others. What do you guys think?

 

[Pan1cMode]

http://www.whitenessproject.org/checkbox

White people we gotta talk

What do you want to talk about?

What is it exactly that you want white people to get from that website?

So, Sam Harris and Bill Maher have sparked a debate. They think Islam is the worst religion in the world right now. The most dangerous and should be criticized more than the others. What do you guys think?

I don't think Ben understood Sam Harris' central point. It's basically the same argument I've had with Christians on this website.

He's not saying that all muslims are bad or evil. He is saying that the Qur'an and the Hadith contain inherently evil dogmas (such as killing of apostates, subjugation of women) which are central tenants to the religion. These ideas are abhorrent and deserve to be criticised. It is not islamaphobia to denounce Islam because it has these beliefs in its central text nor is islamaphobia to denounce those who believe in these principles.

The same thing can be said for Christianity. The bible contains some very bigoted passages. Christianity as a religion deserves to be criticised for these bigoted passages, and those who believe in these bigoted passages deserve to be called out.

 

[Soul Bound X]

What do you want to talk about?

What is it exactly that you want white people to get from that website?



I don't think Ben understood Sam Harris' central point. It's basically the same argument I've had with Christians on this website.

He's not saying that all muslims are bad or evil. He is saying that the Qur'an and the Hadith contain inherently evil dogmas (such as killing of apostates, subjugation of women) which are central tenants to the religion. These ideas are abhorrent and deserve to be criticised. It is not islamaphobia to denounce Islam because it has these beliefs in its central text nor is islamaphobia to denounce those who believe in these principles.

The same thing can be said for Christianity. The bible contains some very bigoted passages. Christianity as a religion deserves to be criticised for these bigoted passages, and those who believe in these bigoted passages deserve to be called out.

Exactly. I'm glad to see that some liberals are finally starting to see Sam's point. That islam needs to be criticized and is the cause of a lot of bad things right now. Back when someone like Christopher Hitchens use to say stuff like that, the liberal crowd hated it. Now they seem to be split on the subject. It's a nice shift to see happening.