Gurdur

Having already expressed my approval of Bill Snedden's reply, let's disagree on a couple of points.

BTW, I take it that Embodiment of The Absolute Idea is simply Trebaxian Vir under a different name ? Same old neo-Platonism ? same old trolling ?

Not true. Here in this thread the argument's not about whether one has a moral duty to others, but the limits of that moral duty.

Does moral duty extend to others ?
Under almost all moral systems in practice, induitably.

To take but one example:
A parent has a moral duty to treat their child humanely, as well as to send the child off to school etc.
When that moral duty is not fulfilled, the state often steps in and takes the child, i.e. assumes the moral duty because of non-fulfillment on the part of the parent.

(I'm leaving out all the examples of moral duty towards community, enviroment and neighbours for the sake of argumentative simplicity)

So, going back to the original argument; does a parent ever have a duty to kill themselves for their children ?
(such circumstances are easily imagiinable and have existed)
No; though a parent may feel that overwhelmingly, act accordingly, and be justified in doing so, but still not morally compelled.
This is a diffficult contortion to try bringing in others through the back door; much easier simply to recognise humans are social animals with individual personalities, with consequent social responsibilities, as well as individual responsibilities.

The theoretical derivation of all morals from the individual self is an illusionary contrivance.
Agreed in full.

Totalitarianist

I disagree. I guess we're at a stalemate, then.

That is not ironic. Utiliarianism is about pleasure. The greater good that I speak of has nothing to do with pleasure.

It is not.

It is organic. The human body is likewise not an indivisible whole.

It depends upon the value of the person. The assassination of the Prime Minister would cause some damage. Are you saying that each man is not a part of nature? And yet a part cannot exist without a greater whole. In the case of man the greater whole is society, in which each man functions as a part, and, unless flawed, for the good of the whole.

That is simply because the human heart is a very significant organ. Such obviously expendable humans that you are speaking of are not. Humans are not equal. They are different in many important ways. Some are more like organs, others more like cells or tissue; yet they all function, unless defective, for the greater good.

Humans cannot reason. That implies free will, which is an unscientific concept.

Invalid. This you cannot prove. At all events, slavery implies nothing bad.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Embodiment of The Absolute Idea ]</p>

Gurdur

LOL !
You are Trebaxian Vir, aren't you ?

Anyway, let's get a few things straight:

All you've done is make unsubstantiated assertions, and act as though they were objective truth.
No can do.
You're making subjective moral statements, and pretending they have universality.
Nonsense.

And lastly, your above statement that I quoted is complete rubbish.
For a start, "free-will" is not an unscientific concept; there's a fair amount of scientific research into just how our limited free-will arose (evolutionary psychology, compuational psychology etc. fields)

Next: the ability to reason is there in humans and in many animals (to a much more limited degree); reasoning is simply a process of applying deductive algorithms - and a machine can do it as well.

Out of interest, will you ever explicitly recognise the difference between your individual opinion and "the Truth" ?

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Acinom

LOL! My parents have some shoes that need polishing and frankly, I wouldn't mind someone to carry me to and from classes everyday. Are you volunteering, Embodiment?

Totalitarianist

Irrelevant.

Precisely what you are doing right now. Precisely what I never do.

Most schools of psychology are unscientific (the exception being behaviourism). Evolutionary psychology cannot be considered as a true science, like physics. Free will is unscientific because science is deterministic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.

It is an illusion. There is no reason to believe that it is actually making its own decisions, and choosing the best option out of its own free will, i.e., reasoning.

One could say the same thing about absolutely anything. This is just a very easy way to avoid an argument. When debating at least, you seem to have this invariable fixation on the arguer, and you avoid the argument itself to the utmost of your ability, hiding your embarrassing aversion by pretending that you have refuted the entire argument with such laughable statements.

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Embodiment of The Absolute Idea ]</p>

Gurdur

No, no, no. You got several facts wrong (as usual), but more importantly you should amend the last sentence there - what you actually mean is,
"Anyone who thinks otherwise than yourself is incorrect".

Yes, yes, we're all aware that you can make grandiose pronouncements. But when will you make a logical, scientifically-based argument ?

We're not having an argument.
What we've had so far is your assertions of prejudice masquerading as the "Truth", followed by easy logical and factual refutations of the same, with a bit of discussion between the others here, followed now by your telling us you are right and everyone else is wrong - again without any substantiation.
Or, IOW, you're just trolling again.

LordMoneyG

Slavery implies unconditional, forced servitude to another, with very little attention heeded to the one serving. That, I believe, is the epitome of "bad." Very few would argue that the definition of slavery is ambigious, let alone anything other than "bad."

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: LordMoneyG ]</p>

Totalitarianist

This is just laughable. How can they be facts if they are wrong? You have asserted that I am incorrect; therefore, you must not only tell us which facts are not actually facts that I stated as facts, but tell us how they are incorrect. You have neglected doing both of these obligations. Your assertion that I "got several facts wrong" is therefore unjustified, if not absurd.


This has nothing to do with me. The same could be said about you, child. Is this what you mean?--

"Anyone who thinks differently than Gurdur is mistaken."

Once again, you prove that your debating abilities do not transcend the act of attempting to insult the debater.

If it is so illogical, and not "scientically based", then it should be easy to refute. But alas, it is not as you fancy it.

How are we not having an argument?

That is untrue. Please, some quotations would help. There has been attempts, but there has been no actual refutation yet. There has been but one weak effort to prove what the arguer believed to be a weak analogy. But no actual refutations.

Of course, this last bit is based upon your gross distortion of what I have been saying, so that you could more easily attack it. On second thought, all that you have been saying here so far is based upon that.

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Embodiment of The Absolute Idea ]</p>

Gurdur

Actually, I did; you simply have ignored my comments on scientific research into limited free-will, and you have ignored Bill Snedden's and my own philosophical refutations of your "moral" stance, retreating back to repeating your assertions.

I won't bother with your ad hominems.

Totalitarianist

Actually you didn't.

I responded to those. And no, by no fancy of the imagination were those refutations. It is a fact universally accepted that science is deterministic. I here appeal to qualified authorities on the subject.

Merely a response to your attacks.

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Embodiment of The Absolute Idea ]</p>