I marked this politics, but I'm sure there is also a religious base to many people's belief system. If you care to share, I'm sure it would help the group understand each other a bit better.
I will start....
I believe in God, and the free will He bestowed on humanity. I believe in the framework of self governance laid out by our Founding Father's in the Constitution. I believe in personal responsibility for your actions. I believe the family is the bedrock of American success.
I marked this politics, but I'm sure there is also a religious base to many people's belief system. If you care to share, I'm sure it would help the group understand each other a bit better.
I will start....
I believe in God, and the free will He bestowed on humanity. I believe in the framework of self governance laid out by our Founding Father's in the Constitution. I believe in personal responsibility for your actions. I believe the family is the bedrock of American success.
Anyone else care to contribute?
I believe our failure to adhere to the principles you have stated is the reason our society is failing.
I marked this politics, but I'm sure there is also a religious base to many people's belief system. If you care to share, I'm sure it would help the group understand each other a bit better.
I will start....
I believe in God, and the free will He bestowed on humanity. I believe in the framework of self governance laid out by our Founding Father's in the Constitution. I believe in personal responsibility for your actions. I believe the family is the bedrock of American success.
Anyone else care to contribute?
I do think everyone believes in something whether they recognize it or not, I could argue you cant go a day or make one decision without it being true.
You me and texasfiero appear to be on the same page. I hope from my posts people can tell, I believe an additional detail to mention is that I believe Jesus died to save us all and it is up to us individually to truly acknowledge it.
Any of the others can be eliminated without a major issue. You dont have to believe in God, government, or be in a family to be good. Lots of orphans have done quite well for themself. You dont have to believe fully in a government, but if you chose to be where you are...you must respect it. I absolutely HATED the Obuma administration and everything to do with it, but still followed to my best ability.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-23-2018).]
Any of the others can be eliminated without a major issue. You dont have to believe in God, government, or be in a family to be good. Lots of orphans have done quite well for themself. You dont have to believe fully in a government, but if you chose to be where you are...you must respect it. I absolutely HATED the Obuma administration and everything to do with it, but still followed to my best ability.
I think saying that takes for granted the other things. As if they aren't needed because many people respect them anyway. (That changes over time.) In the large picture these things you don't believe are important work together. When talking about society as texasfiero brought up and you replied to, these things aren't only referring to ones self, but how we interact as a society. In the large picture saying some orphans did well, doesn't mean family is not beneficial.
I was a born again Baptist. Now I'm agnostic. I'm still a moral person and I actually am more concerned about those who are less fortunate than me than many Christians.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: You dont have to believe in God, government, or be in a family to be good.
I tend to agree with this. Religion hasn't cornered the market on morality, and likely never will. Studies have shown time and again that religiosity is NOT a predictor of morality.
That said, I actually feel sorry for someone who needs the threat of eternal damnation to keep them honest. Not to brag, but I have enough self-discipline to make that stuff unnecessary. Maybe that's part of the reason why I'm agnostic?
Another part of why I'm agnostic is because I don't like to make assumptions (or presumptions). Religion and atheism both require you to presume something that cannot be proven or disproved. You just have to believe. Yes, even atheism requires you to "have faith" that there's no god... because there is no definitive proof of that.
I also have great respect for our founding fathers, and the principles upon which they founded this nation. Yes, those principles are based on Judeo-Christian values, and I have no problem with that. Because those values in turn are grounded in something even more fundamental. The concept of inalienable rights intrinsic to your very humanity is a concept that transcends religion (or the lack thereof), and speaks to the very core of human nature.
One final thought: Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility, but freedom WITH responsibility.
I tend to agree with this. Religion hasn't cornered the market on morality, and likely never will. Studies have shown time and again that religiosity is NOT a predictor of morality.
That said, I actually feel sorry for someone who needs the threat of eternal damnation to keep them honest. Not to brag, but I have enough self-discipline to make that stuff unnecessary. Maybe that's part of the reason why I'm agnostic?
It's very easy and convenient to call yourself "moral" when you are the one setting your own standard.
I do think everyone believes in something whether they recognize it or not, I could argue you cant go a day or make one decision without it being true.
You me and texasfiero appear to be on the same page. I hope from my posts people can tell, I believe an additional detail to mention is that I believe Jesus died to save us all and it is up to us individually to truly acknowledge it.
It's also easy to use your religion as a false facade of morality.
That isn't really true. Morality isn't about what group you claim affiliation with, it's about how one adheres to a codified, fixed set of principles and laws, (i.e. the 10 Commandments in the Bible).
You essentially said that you don't need religion to be "moral", so then the obvious question becomes; whose principles and laws do you follow other than just your own that you make up to suit yourself?
If you are the one setting your own principles and laws to follow, then undoubtedly you are also the one deciding what consequences there are for breaking your own rules.
It certainly isn't difficult to imagine that any "punishment" you might mete out to yourself is as extraordinarily lenient as the rules that you set for yourself.
It must be all very convenient and easy to be your own God.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-25-2018).]
It must be all very convenient and easy to be your own God.
Actually not really, we have to take self responsibility for everything we do, say, and those we effect. But religious, which im assuming you are based on your replies here, based on your beliefs, everything you do, good or bad, or say, or how you effect those around you.. Well that's all just part of "gods plan".. Which basically erases any responsibility you have for, depending on how far you take it, and how "deep" your beliefs go, your not responsible for... Anything.
Must be all very convenient and easy to have your life, and choices all planned out for you, and all responsibility taken away, since you have no effect on it anyway, right? All gods plan.. Just going with gods "flow" and have no control over it.
I also have great respect for our founding fathers, and the principles upon which they founded this nation. Yes, those principles are based on Judeo-Christian values, and I have no problem with that. Because those values in turn are grounded in something even more fundamental. The concept of inalienable rights intrinsic to your very humanity is a concept that transcends religion (or the lack thereof), and speaks to the very core of human nature.
Originally posted by Jonesy: Actually not really, we have to take self responsibility for everything we do, say, and those we effect. But religious, which im assuming you are based on your replies here, based on your beliefs, everything you do, good or bad, or say, or how you effect those around you.. Well that's all just part of "gods plan".. Which basically erases any responsibility you have for, depending on how far you take it, and how "deep" your beliefs go, your not responsible for... Anything.
Must be all very convenient and easy to have your life, and choices all planned out for you, and all responsibility taken away, since you have no effect on it anyway, right? All gods plan.. Just going with gods "flow" and have no control over it.
I see those all as false assumptions. I take clear responsibility for everything I do, say, and those I effect. From my own point of view I see my belief as clarity, making my decisions, what I say and what I do.. have even more clear precise meaning, with even more clear and precise consequences.
Actually not really, we have to take self responsibility for everything we do, say, and those we effect. But religious, which im assuming you are based on your replies here, based on your beliefs, everything you do, good or bad, or say, or how you effect those around you.. Well that's all just part of "gods plan".. Which basically erases any responsibility you have for, depending on how far you take it, and how "deep" your beliefs go, your not responsible for... Anything.
Must be all very convenient and easy to have your life, and choices all planned out for you, and all responsibility taken away, since you have no effect on it anyway, right? All gods plan.. Just going with gods "flow" and have no control over it.
You obviously don't fully understand the concept of man's free will as it applies to religious philosophy.
From the Bible, the Torah, the Tao, the Koran and the teachings of Buddha, almost every major religious dogma on this planet deals with your personal choices and responsibility for those choices and consequences for your choices.
Every single rational and genuinely "religious" person that I know is very concerned with their choices in life and their responsibility for those choices. None of them that I have ever met believe that they some kind of "puppet" and God just pulls their strings at a whim.
When you say:
quote
Originally posted by Jonesy:
Actually not really, we have to take self responsibility for everything we do, say, and those we effect.
I have to ask, WHY?
You say that you "have to", but why?
What compels you to take self responsibility? How much responsibility do you take and moreover what are your own consequences if you don't?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-25-2018).]
Originally posted by 2.5: What do you think of the first vid I posted?
I think Dr Peterson made an excellent point. In order for society (any society) to work, it needs to be based on a set of ideals, a "transcendent morality" as he puts it. And the ideals can't be arbitrary. People tend to rebel against arbitrary rules. The ideals need to be something fundamental, that speaks to the human soul.
And IMO, our founding fathers did an excellent job of that.
I think Dr Peterson made an excellent point. In order for society (any society) to work, it needs to be based on a set of ideals, a "transcendent morality" as he puts it. And the ideals can't be arbitrary. People tend to rebel against arbitrary rules. The ideals need to be something fundamental, that speaks to the human soul.
And IMO, our founding fathers did an excellent job of that.
Where do you think the founding fathers got their "transcendent morality" from? Those "ideals that speak to the human soul".
Where have other successful societies around the world found their "transcendent moralities"?
Is there a common basis among these successful societies for the origins of their "transcendent moralities"?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-24-2018).]
My belief system consists of two primary focuses: My belief for the framework of society, and my belief for individual success.
For the framework of society:
I believe everyone should live to make themselves happier, and that happiness is inherently (and essentially) subjective. I believe everyone has a right to pursue that happiness, so long as it does not go against another's rights.
If at any point rights are conflicting, I believe there is a hierarchy of rights. Namely: Bodily autonomy as number one (this includes the right to life, freedom from battery, slavery, speech, etc.), followed by the right to own property. And because of their rights to pursue happiness, they should be able to do almost anything else, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the inalienable rights of another. This is a very simplified list and categorization of rights, and it clearly doesn't cover everything, but this is the primary concept.
I believe a government's primary role is in defense of those rights and contracts. They exist to provide structure to these rights so they aren't violated by others. This extends to upholding contracts, etc.
For individual success:
Everyone should be living in pursuit of their goals. Those goals should be defined and measurable. In pursuit of those goals, you should be treating everyone equitably and in accordance with their rights and any contracts held between you and them.
I believe every individual should frequently be challenging all of their beliefs. It's important to always be challenging your implicit and explicit biases to confirm where you stand has the strongest foundation. I like to check to make sure my beliefs are consistent across categories. I also like to check multiple sources and studies, and see if they've been peer-reviewed. I've changed a lot of my core beliefs by doing this, which is vital to continued growth. I have a much stronger foundation now than ever before.
My belief system consists of two primary focuses: My belief for the framework of society, and my belief for individual success.
Other than touching on a couple of the basic tenants of the United States Constitution, that reads like a weird mash-up of the wiccan "law of three", Maslow's hierarchy of needs, American contract / tort law and a dollop of social justice warrior thrown in just for the hell of it.
It is oddly empty of any spiritual belief yet chock full of things that you maintain are "rights" that you provide no basis for.
Where do your "rights" come from?
You say; "the inalienable rights of another", but what makes them so?
Your last paragraph seems to be nothing more than a statement of ever changing moral relativism accompanied by an admission that you have no real fixed, immutable core beliefs at all.
How is anyone supposed to take anything you said before that seriously when you conclude by telling us that it all may change by tomorrow....or two hours from now?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-25-2018).]
Other than touching on a couple of the basic tenants of the United States Constitution, that reads like a weird mash-up of the wiccan "law of three", Maslow's hierarchy of needs, American contract / tort law and a dollop of social justice warrior thrown in just for the hell of it.
It is oddly empty of any spiritual belief yet chock full of things that you maintain are "rights" that you provide no basis for.
Where do "rights" come from?
You say; "the inalienable rights of another", but what makes them so?
Your last paragraph seems to be nothing more than a statement of ever changing moral relativism accompanied by an admission that you have no real fixed, immutable core beliefs at all.
How is anyone supposed to take anything you said before that seriously when you conclude by telling us that it all may change by tomorrow....or two hours from now?
There is literally no Wiccan law of three in there at all. Not sure how you read that in there. Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs can somewhat apply to what I think people should strive for, but it's a stretch. Just because I believe in a heirarchy of rights doesn't mean I'm applying Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs into my moral principles. I brought up contracts because it is an important component of what I believe to be bodily autonomy, plus a core tenet of my belief for the structure of government. And I'm not really an SJW, but I do try to understand my biases to make me a better employee and better friend.
I listed in there our rights to our bodies and to personal property. They don't come from anywhere outside of social contract, which is partially a byproduct of evolution. I call them inalienable because I believe every human is, or should be, born with them.
Ultimately, social contracts are flawed, and we don't inherently have rights without others believing in those rights, but for the sake of simplicity, I throw that out the window when discussing morality. It's about as useful of a thought experiment as "we are all living in a simulation." We are discussing my belief system, after all.
I don't believe in any spiritual being, so it would make sense why I didn't include that in there.
My moral values differ from others, so I necessarily believe in soke semblance of moral relativism. And my views are built on testing them against other ideas and concepts. They are strong, but the right argument could sway my opinion. I feel that way about virtually everything I believe. It is healthy to be open to changing your opinion on something, no matter how unlikely it is that you might be proven wrong. I've changed my opinion through my years on this forum. If I change my belief, it means the new belief is stronger and more consistent than my old belief. Otherwise, what is the point of debating anyone, if both sides refuse to admit any fault?
I didn't ask for you to take me seriously. I simply stated my beliefs. You probably don't agree, which is more than fine with me, because I think you're an ******* based on how you treat others on this forum.
I didn't ask for you to take me seriously. I simply stated my beliefs. You probably don't agree, which is more than fine with me, because I think you're an ******* based on how you treat others on this forum.
I honestly don't give a damn what you think of me, but since you seem to be eager to share your opinion, I'll give you mine.
I didn't personally insult you in any way. I simply gave my observations about what you said.
Now you even admit and confirm my observations that you engage in simplistic moral relativism and you have no fixed immutable core beliefs. Incredibly, you claim that is somehow a "positive".
In reality it means that no rational person should trust you with anything since you may change your "morality" in the next 2 minutes.
If any of that "offends" you, which I'm sure you will not be able to resist claiming that it does, then you are "offended" by your own damn words and ideas.
That said, I think that you have all of the philosophical depth, clarity and value of a small, shallow mud puddle and you routinely demonstrate the reasoning ability of a child.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-26-2018).]
I honestly don't give a damn what you think of me, but since you seem to be eager to share your opinion, I'll give you mine.
I didn't personally insult you in any way. I simply gave my observations about what you said.
Now you even admit and confirm my observations that you engage in simplistic moral relativism and you have no fixed immutable core beliefs. Incredibly, you claim that is somehow a "positive".
In reality it means that no rational person should trust you with anything since you may change your "morality" in the next 2 minutes.
If any of that "offends" you, which I'm sure you will not be able to resist claiming that it does, then you are "offended" by your own damn words and ideas.
That said, I think that you have all of the philosophical depth, clarity and value of a small, shallow mud puddle and you routinely demonstrate the reasoning ability of a child.
I can't help but wonder if someone would not be well served to find a new venue for their creative energies and passions. Maybe not as a replacement for this forum, but as another medium for channeling their zeitgeist, existing side by side for them, along with this forum.
In my neighborhood, there is the UCSC Extension for Continuing Education. I have completed some of their course topics. Most were of the weekly classroom sessions with homework and self-paced projects style. Some--or maybe just one, in my case--was conducted entirely online.
Creative or Expository Writing? Programming with Python? The Emergence of Modernism in Art? Seminal Developments in Black Hole Physics? Oceanography for Non-Professionals?
There is, perhaps, an intellectual smorgasbord available with a virtually endless panoply of offerings.
I can't help but wonder if someone would not be well served to find a new venue for their creative energies and passions. Maybe not as a replacement for this forum, but as another medium for channeling their zeitgeist, existing side by side for them, along with this forum.
In my neighborhood, there is the UCSC Extension for Continuing Education. I have completed some of their course topics. Most were of the weekly classroom sessions with homework and self-paced projects style. Some--or maybe just one, in my case--was conducted entirely online.
Creative or Expository Writing? Programming with Python? The Emergence of Modernism in Art? Seminal Developments in Black Hole Physics? Oceanography for Non-Professionals?
There is, perhaps, an intellectual smorgasbord available with a virtually endless panoply of offerings.
Not on topic. Not surprised.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 02-26-2018).]
Originally posted by theBDub: [SUP]Ultimately, social contracts are flawed, and we don't inherently have rights without others believing in those rights,
I'm not sure how you define social contract or a right.
But the rights that many believe are granted to all humans, "inalienable rights", sanctity of life for example, are only trampled on by other humans wrongly. That does not mean they depend on social contract to be valid. But it also does not mean we humans don't set up flawed systems and get enough people to go along with them that we forget about reality over generations. To clarify: Mass murdering Marxists throughout history were going against basic human rights. But the rights did not cease to exist.
I'm not sure how you define social contract or a right.
But the rights that many believe are granted to all humans, "inalienable rights", sanctity of life for example, are only trampled on by other humans wrongly. That does not mean they depend on social contract to be valid. But it also does not mean we humans don't set up flawed systems and get enough people to go along with them that we forget about reality over generations. To clarify: Mass murdering Marxists throughout history were going against basic human rights. But the rights did not cease to exist.
To me, there is a difference between what I believe to be true for all humans, and what is inherently true for all humans. Thinking in terms of the history of the earth, what humans are, how we got here, etc... rights aren't a real thing. Breaking down into what we are comprised of, just a collection of elements, brought together by time and chance, we aren't anything on a cosmic scale. Rights are a construct of social contracts, which we have found to be useful for survival of the species.
All of that being said... none of it is very applicable in the sense that we do live in a society where humans do matter, regardless of scale or chance or anything else. So that is why I put it in small print. I believe we all should have rights, and those rights should exists regardless of country, regime, or island.
Essentially, forget what I am saying about what rights are inherent and what aren't. For all intents and purposes, rights exist inherently and inalienably. Going down the other rabbit hole is fun, but not very useful.
To clarify: Mass murdering Marxists throughout history were going against basic human rights. But the rights did not cease to exist.
Exactly. An oppressive regime doesn't take away your basic human rights. It simply fails to recognize them. And the subjects are either afraid or unable to force that regime to recognize them.
Also, understand that if you claim those subjects had no rights to trample upon, then technically you're claiming that oppressive regimes aren't doing anything wrong. Think about it. How can you oppress someone who has no rights? If a person has no right to life, then you can kill that person without remorse. If a person has no right to personal freedom, then you can jail that person for any reason, for as long as you wish. These are things that tyrants do, because they believe that people don't have rights unless somebody bestows those rights upon them.
This is why the concept of inalienable rights is so important. It is literally an antidote to tyranny.
Edit to add: Oops, Brennan snuck in a post while I was typing. I'll still leave it up, though.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 02-26-2018).]
I can't help but wonder if someone would not be well served to find a new venue for their creative energies and passions. Maybe not as a replacement for this forum, but as another medium for channeling their zeitgeist, existing side by side for them, along with this forum.
Did budget cuts force them to cancel basket weaving?
Exactly. An oppressive regime doesn't take away your basic human rights. It simply fails to recognize them. And the subjects are either afraid or unable to force that regime to recognize them.
Also, understand that if you claim those subjects had no rights to trample upon, then technically you're claiming that oppressive regimes aren't doing anything wrong. Think about it. How can you oppress someone who has no rights? If a person has no right to life, then you can kill that person without remorse. If a person has no right to personal freedom, then you can jail that person for any reason, for as long as you wish. These are things that tyrants do, because they believe that people don't have rights unless somebody bestows those rights upon them.
This is why the concept of inalienable rights is so important. It is literally an antidote to tyranny.
Edit to add: Oops, Brennan snuck in a post while I was typing. I'll still leave it up, though.
What is interesting about this as well, if you look at it in context of kids with no respect for human life doing things like shooting up schools, killing their parents, etc....even suicide.... were they essentially taught it by a society that ruled it OK to abort babies?
Humans that cannot defend themselves.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-26-2018).]
To me, there is a difference between what I believe to be true for all humans, and what is inherently true for all humans. Thinking in terms of the history of the earth, what humans are, how we got here, etc... rights aren't a real thing. Breaking down into what we are comprised of, just a collection of elements, brought together by time and chance, we aren't anything on a cosmic scale. Rights are a construct of social contracts, which we have found to be useful for survival of the species.
All of that being said... none of it is very applicable in the sense that we do live in a society where humans do matter, regardless of scale or chance or anything else. So that is why I put it in small print. I believe we all should have rights, and those rights should exists regardless of country, regime, or island.
Essentially, forget what I am saying about what rights are inherent and what aren't. For all intents and purposes, rights exist inherently and inalienably. Going down the other rabbit hole is fun, but not very useful.
You pretty much defined the problem in your first paragraph. People cant have it both ways.
*But maybe that gets to the real point. What is the tipping point? When a certain percentage of people believe your first paragraph?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-26-2018).]
Originally posted by 2.5: You pretty much defined the problem in your first paragraph. People cant have it both ways.
*But maybe that gets to the real point. What is the tipping point? When a certain percentage of people believe your first paragraph?
This is exactly why I put it in small print, and why I compared it to the thought experiment of living in a simulation. Let's say I decide we are living in a simulation (I don't actually think this). Okay, what do I then do with that information? It's useless. So I buy in to the simulated world and live exactly the same way. Same with this: I think all rights are just social constructs. Okay, now what? Nothing is right, nothing is wrong? I'm just a collection of elements--so I don't matter? No, I consciously buy in to the social contract and concept of inalienable rights and live exactly the same way, because that brings the most value to me and my life.
Hope I’m not too annoying because its very thoroughly explaining some things if one listens, in my opinon. 
