Which group ruins the world more

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.

Who destroys the world more - the unemployed and homeless ugly poor, or the beautiful rich ?

The poor
2
25%
The rich
6
75%
 
Total votes: 8
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by juansweetpotato »

StroppyChops wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 10:36 pm
eriksank wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 7:12 pm
StroppyChops wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 4:07 pmI'll say this for you, you put in far more effort than the usual troll.
I did not invent the core requirement for morality:
Spoiler:
It is morality's form that matters and not its content.

This meta-requirement was famously discovered by Immanuel Kant in his 1788 Critique of practical Reason:

Kant concludes that the source of the nomological character of the moral law must derive not from its content but from its form alone. The only appropriate rule is the rule whose content is equivalent to its form, the categorical imperative. To follow the practical law is to be autonomous, whereas to follow any of the other types of contingent laws (or hypothetical imperatives) is to be heteronomous and therefore unfree. The moral law, in Kant's view, is equivalent to the idea of freedom.

Image

Immanuel Kant was simply a genius.

Morality is a set of arbitrary but consistent and axiomatically revealed rules that either survive and get transmitted from generation to generation, or else don't.

That is why new moral inventions are always preposterous. They haven't proven whatsoever that they can manage to survive from generation to generation. When you listen to non-religious people, atheists, you can hear rules that they have invented recently, or even just on the spot. That is another reason -- besides all the other ones that I have already mentioned -- why atheist morality is utterly ridiculous. Atheist morality is an impossibly inferior practice. It is something undocumented, self-defeating, and liberally concocted by the idiots for the idiots. I spit on it.
Yes, yes, that's all very (yawn) entertaining... do go on.
I'm finding it interesting. It certainly doesn't bode well for Cambodia looking at it through Kantian eyes. That's why I'm so critical of it. They seem to be working only on hypothetical imperatives atm.

I'm not sure if western state education tries hard to condition us to work on categorical imperatives, whilst private schooling emphasizes more the hypothetical imperatives.

Out here seems to be a different educational ballgame.

I suspect there is more to it than just which school you went to though.

Shit floats on top, and will always find a way to get there if it can..
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
eriksank
Expatriate
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:25 am
Reputation: 24

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by eriksank »

juansweetpotato wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 10:21 pmKant is all very well in the west, but what about out here?
Kant is the metalevel. Kant does not propose any particular, concrete morality object. He proposes an invariant for this type of objects: Such object is not valid because of its content, but because of its form. There are indeed multiple concrete morality objects in circulation. They must all obey by this rule, or else be fundamentally invalid.

In my impression, the traditional Cambodian take on morality seems to satisfy Kant's invariant. The buddhist dharma is a list of rules that are forbidden onto you, a Law. Why do you suffer? Because you have broken the dharma earlier in this life, or in an earlier life. These punishments -- your suffering -- are effected by the system of karma.
juansweetpotato wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 10:21 pmWe need a fourth option at very least.
"Gives fair prices ..." is not morality.

Morality is: Refrains from giving prices forbidden by the (scriptural) moral rules. If the (scriptural) moral rules -- or rules that can be derived exclusively from them -- do not forbid particular prices, these shopkeepers are free to give whatever prices they want.

Since the concept of "giving fair prices ..." will most likely never lead to identifying a forbidden behaviour, it is simply unrelated to morality. It will probably be impossible for the ulema/clergy to pronounce a fatwa/determination on this subject, while preserving the ijma/consensus amongst religious scholars.
peppermintpaddy
Expatriate
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:13 am
Reputation: 13
Ireland

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by peppermintpaddy »

juansweetpotato wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 1:21 pm
peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 11:56 pm
juansweetpotato wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 9:10 am
peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 3:57 am without a doubt....muslims ,be they rich or poor.
Please take care out there as you seem to be susceptible to slight of hand.
and you seem to be susceptible to verbal diarrohea....by the way ,its sleight of hand,if you're gonna be a smartarse ,learn to spell.
I'm really quite undecided on which group does more harm - that's why I asked the question. But I'm 99.999% sure it's not the muslims. Far more of them have been killed by 'Christians' than the other way round by some horrific figure. There are radicals in both parties.
[/quote]

absolute nonsense......the Ottoman Empire alone killed 10 million christians....nice to know who the Muslime apologists are on this forum
peppermintpaddy
Expatriate
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:13 am
Reputation: 13
Ireland

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by peppermintpaddy »

vladimir wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 2:51 pm
peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 11:56 pmand you seem to be susceptible to verbal diarrohea....by the way ,its sleight of hand,if you're gonna be a smartarse ,learn to spell.
You misspelled diarrhoea and missed a hyphen on smart-arse. You typed 'its' (possessive, incorrect) instead of 'it's'. You also incorrectly spaced the comma after btw, and smartarse (sic)...

One should also not generally start a sentence with a conjunction (and)..but if one does, one should observe the only unbreakable rule of syntax/grammar in the English language: every sentence begins with a capital letter.

Just saying. :stir:
i misspelled nothing,youre using American spell check smart arse....you however, ,misspelled sleight...you can tell if somebody has ever read a book by their misspelling of certain words,sleight being one of those words....
peppermintpaddy
Expatriate
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:13 am
Reputation: 13
Ireland

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by peppermintpaddy »

eriksank wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 7:12 pm
StroppyChops wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 4:07 pmI'll say this for you, you put in far more effort than the usual troll.
I did not invent the core requirement for morality:

It is morality's form that matters and not its content.

This meta-requirement was famously discovered by Immanuel Kant in his 1788 Critique of practical Reason:



Image

Immanuel Kant was simply a genius.

Morality is a set of arbitrary but consistent and axiomatically revealed rules that either survive and get transmitted from generation to generation, or else don't.
incredibly boring...Don't be Kant all your life-take a day off!
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by juansweetpotato »

eriksank wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 12:45 am
"Gives fair prices ..." is not morality.

Morality is: Refrains from giving prices forbidden by the (scriptural) moral rules. If the (scriptural) moral rules -- or rules that can be derived exclusively from them -- do not forbid particular prices, these shopkeepers are free to give whatever prices they want.

Since the concept of "giving fair prices ..." will most likely never lead to identifying a forbidden behaviour, it is simply unrelated to morality. It will probably be impossible for the ulema/clergy to pronounce a fatwa/determination on this subject, while preserving the ijma/consensus amongst religious scholars.
I'll just try to answer this bit. According to Kant, only one of these three shopkeepers is working under a moral premise, as they are the only one working with a categorical imperative.
The rest don't stand up to his maxim test: whatever you're about to do - ask yourself what if everybody were doing it at all times and in all places.

Image
Which one is the only moral shopkeeper?

If you're just seeking a reward in this, or the after, life, you haven't even entered the moral sphere.Things that many religious and conservative people either don't understand or just don't give a fuck about unless it starts to effect them. I'm allright Jack pov - Just not let's let everyone do it, or it will be bad for me.

Image
Last edited by juansweetpotato on Sun May 28, 2017 11:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
eriksank
Expatriate
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:25 am
Reputation: 24

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by eriksank »

juansweetpotato wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 11:17 amWhich one is the only moral shopkeeper?
Prices are not subject to morality, because there is not one rule in the scriptures that forbids anything concerning prices.
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by juansweetpotato »

eriksank wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 11:48 am
juansweetpotato wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 11:17 amWhich one is the only moral shopkeeper?
Prices are not subject to morality, because there is not one rule in the scriptures that forbids anything concerning prices.
You're idea that Kant thinks only religious people that truly beleive and follow their religion's mores can be moral, is flawed. Actions using categorical imperatives is all one needs to take a moral stance.

One needs to act from a sense of duty, and not just according to it.

Kant didn't believe that a sense of duty was a cold hard thing, just something innate in the majority of people. You could argue that religion put it there in the first place though. I prefer to take the cog psychology approach and say people do what is good for the group in the main in order to survive.
The ideal blend would be between shopkeepers 2 and 3.
Last edited by juansweetpotato on Sun May 28, 2017 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
eriksank
Expatriate
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:25 am
Reputation: 24

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by eriksank »

juansweetpotato wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 12:12 pmYou're idea that Kant thinks only religious people that truly beleive can be moral, is flawed.
I don't know if Kant ever wrote anything in particular about atheist morals. Kant certainly wasn't an atheist. As far as I am concerned, atheists have no documented form of morality. That is why 5 atheists have 5 different versions of morality. That approach is therefore useless.
juansweetpotato wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 12:12 pmThe ideal blend would be between shopkeepers 2 and 3.
No, because prices are not subject to morality.
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by juansweetpotato »

eriksank wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 12:24 pm
juansweetpotato wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 12:12 pmYou're idea that Kant thinks only religious people that truly beleive can be moral, is flawed.
I don't know if Kant ever wrote anything in particular about atheist morals.
Afaik, he didn't beleive morality was based on a belief (fear) in god. Even though he believed in god himself.

Kant certainly wasn't an atheist. As far as I am concerned, atheists have no documented form of morality. That is why 5 atheists have 5 different versions of morality. That approach is therefore useless.
juansweetpotato wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 12:12 pmThe ideal blend would be between shopkeepers 2 and 3.
No, because prices are not subject to morality.
Sorry, I missed that argument. Can you explain it again?
You seem to be saying that only belief in a religion gives us a definative moral look-up table full of categorial imperatives.
Kant beleved categorical imperatives were inate in the human biology - equivalant to the conscience viewed in a deep sense .
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Art, John Bingham, Ozinasia, Spigzy, xandreu and 510 guests