|
Obdicut posted:This isn't an answer. Do you not get that there is a wide overlapping system of morals where nearly everyone agrees on some things (Randomly killing people is bad) but there is wide contention on other subjects, with lots of different venn diagrams of moralites. Moreover, different cultures have vastly different ways of looking at moral issues and dealing with them. The idea of getting a murderer to just pay the appropriate weregild and letting him off would seem ludicrous today, but it was the norm in Europe for the better part of 400 years (and even quite a bit beyond then).
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I find that in our American culture, religious arguments get a pass by virtue of being religious rather than on the merit of those arguments. I think that is declining, but it still happens. The key point that various people in the thread have been trying to get at is contained within this sentence: "I find" and "I think." How did you come to these conclusions? What empirical analysis did you do or read that brought you to these ideas? I think the reason your logic's so jumbled is because you're cobbling together an argument from impressions and feelings rather than an actual firm sit-down study of the subject matter in question. Vermain fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:No I DO understand that which is why I think his explanation was not very good. The Bible and Das Kapital are very different works, but the explanation of "read the book" because it has "scientific proofs in it" is used with the Bible all the time. It is trivially obvious when you read both works - or if you even read the basic background of the two works off Wikipedia - that Karl Marx applied a scientific methodology to attempting to understand the inner workings of the capitalist mode of production, whereas the Bible is a collection of oral histories from various peoples surrounding the Mediterranean. I don't know why you consider someone saying "read a book and make your own judgment on its veracity" to be such a bizarre statement; that's the absolute basis for proper scholarly inquiry.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Cracker King posted:Would 'destiny' work? Let's call it the motive of némein: "to give what is due." It's not so much the traditional conception of "destiny" (as in, a thing that is meant to happen), but more a sense of repaying acts in kind. When someone does good to us (or a proxy of our identity, such as our society, our religion, etc.), we feel motivated to do good back to them; when someone does evil to us, we feel motivated to strike back with evil deeds in turn.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 16:13
|
|