Food Should be Free

[joswift]

There is no disagreement as to the concept of right and wrong, good and evil. But is there a moral value system outside and above an individual person or is good and evil just a matter of personal opinion.

To say all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong. And then you follow that by saying those values come from their culture and how you were raised. So-called "Palestinians" are taught as children to hate Jews and to kill them. Are they not of sound mind? Do you consider this right as they do?

And there are many instances where you would cause harm and loss to another for the greater good. For instance, killing someone that wants to kill or harm you. Disciplining a child for misbehavior. Firing someone from a job because you want to cut costs.

Anyway, I have to get back to life but I'll be back. I like these kinds of discussions.

Yes, morality is based on your indoctrination and culture.
Yes, its fine to kill sopmeone if they are going to harm you, but thats them breaking the 1st law.., you could make the argument that anyone breaking the law of "cause no loss or harm" means they are excluded from the protection that the law allows, a bit like when people were made "outlaws" in the Wild West , they were excluded the protection of the law so anyone could kill them and not face prosecution.

Children misbehave to test boundaries, as such they are causing you harm by doing so...
As for the sacking someone there is a little addition to the 1st law "cause no loss or harm or commit fraud in contracts" that way no one could sack anyone unless they caused harm themselves by breaching an agreement or contract. 

[Primemuscle]

So, should food be free or not?

[joswift]

So, should food be free or not?

not if it requires someones labour to produce it..

[Al Doggity]

And there are many instances where you would cause harm and loss to another for the greater good.

And this is the key phrase: "for the greater good".  Like I said in my previous post, there are situations where it gets more complicated, but essentially, all of the situations you described were either to hurt someone to prevent future harm or to punish someone who'd already harmed in the past.

Most people's moral barometer would find that the the remedy would have to be commensurate with the infraction. It might not be immoral to kill someone who was an imminent threat to your family, but it would be immoral to kill a child as a form of discipline.

[Primemuscle]

not if it requires someones labour to produce it..

Good point. I have never appreciated having great food more than when I was a kid and lived with cousins on their dairy farm. Most of what we ate they grew or raised and when appropriate, processed and stored for winter. Everyone of us, kids and adults, contributed something to our meals, snacks and desserts.

Homemade ice-cream, which we kids took turns churning by hand was unbelievably delicious. The wild berries and asparagus were not only fun to gather, they tasted wonderful. I wasn't excited when my cousin Winnie's husband slaughtered a year old male calf, but I don't think I've ever had better tasting beef since. Anyone who has tasted a home grown tomato, would wonder what the tasteless pale red things we get at the market are, because they sure don't taste like tomatoes.

These days the only hands on work I do for what I eat is buy it at the store and cook it on the stove or in the oven. Of course I worked my entire adult life and saved for my retirement income, which is what pays for the food I eat today.  

[pellius]

I was born and tried to be raised as a christian but as soon as I worked out the futility and in my opinion stupidity of it all (I was about 11) and I have seen first hand the behaviour of many catholics in my time to know it to be true.

So if someone violates the tenets of a certain belief system then that, perforce, invalidates the entire belief system as a whole? Must all members, be it Mormons or the Police Department, follow all the rules and tenets to the "T" or the whole organization is deemed to be baseless and unsound?

But your experience is very interesting. I was around 14 when I decided to become an Agnostic and announced to my religious family that I would no longer observe the Catholic faith. I was heavily influenced by the writings of Bertrand Russell. It would be hard to understate the effect this had in our household in those days (mid-1970s) and how from their perspective I had just condemned myself to hell.

As the years, actually decades, went by, I worked out the futility and, in my opinion, the stupidity of it all. The idea that the universe just appeared out of nothing and the futility of it all as there is no accountability for any behavior and it really doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things, whether you are good or evil. It's what you can get away with.

[The Scott]

The wants of the lazy, the drug and/or alcohol addicted, the perverse and promiscuous do NOT outweigh the needs of the honest and hard working.

Those that claim otherwise are quislings to this Nation of ours.

[pellius]

Yes, morality is based on your indoctrination and culture.
Yes, its fine to kill sopmeone if they are going to harm you, but thats them breaking the 1st law.., you could make the argument that anyone breaking the law of "cause no loss or harm" means they are excluded from the protection that the law allows, a bit like when people were made "outlaws" in the Wild West , they were excluded the protection of the law so anyone could kill them and not face prosecution.

Children misbehave to test boundaries, as such they are causing you harm by doing so...
As for the sacking someone there is a little addition to the 1st law "cause no loss or harm or commit fraud in contracts" that way no one could sack anyone unless they caused harm themselves by breaching an agreement or contract.  

What law? Killing per se is not against the law. Governments do it to their own people. Muslims are commanded to kill infidels. It may break "your" law but not theirs.

And so now the definition changes from "causing no harm or loss to another human being -- unless they caused or intended to cause harm themselves." And you give a preposterous example that is contorted to fit your world view, that people are fired because they have committed fraud in contracts. That's not why all people are fired. You've heard of "downsizing". What if an employer simply wants to cut cost and fires, deprives one of their livelihood, i.e., causing great harm to another person even though the person did no harm to others? What if a landlord decides they now want to sell a house or give it to a relative that is currently being rented by an elderly couple for the last 20 years? The couple did no harm but they are being harmed tremendously being kicked out of their home for the last 20 years. Here in Hawaii, a long time Sports Bar had to close down because the owner charged an exorbitant fee to renew the lease. A fee the owner knew the business owner could not pay. A long time fixture is now gone and no amount of public protest, and there was a lot, nor the hardship it caused the business owner mattered. The Landlord wanted to rent it to an Olive Garden restaurant because he wanted a different "clientele" to frequent the area. Harm was caused to the business owner who did nothing to deserve it other than to exist.

[pellius]

Now, to get back to the argument at hand: where does morality come from? How do we, did we, determine what is right and what is wrong? You argue that it is purely a human construct. What we like or dislike. But how did we come to those value judgements? You made the statement, "Almost all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong". Really? Are you implying that they are just born with a moral sense? That right and wrong don't really need to be taught but it is an innate trait? How did they get this moral sense? How did it just become ingrained in humans or cultures but not other life forms?

To make it easy I'll list the possibilities as I suspect in these topics it is not as thought through as many think they have: They can be one or any or all on the list and feel free to add any other. And you tell me how humans came up with moral laws.

1. Evolution
2. Reason
3. Conscience
4. Human Nature
5. Utilitarianism

[joswift]

Now, to get back to the argument at hand: where does morality come from? How do we, did we, determine what is right and what is wrong? You argue that it is purely a human construct. What we like or dislike. But how did we come to those value judgements? You made the statement, "Almost all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong". Really? Are you implying that they are just born with a moral sense? That right and wrong don't really need to be taught but it is an innate trait? How did they get this moral sense? How did it just become ingrained in humans or cultures but not other life forms?

To make it easy I'll list the possibilities as I suspect in these topics it is not as thought through as many think they have: They can be one or any or all on the list and feel free to add any other. And you tell me how humans came up with moral laws.

1. Evolution
2. Reason
3. Conscience
4. Human Nature
5. Utilitarianism

I think morality is a mixture of hardwired in and social engineering

Listen to Jordan Petersons lobster theory about how lobsters have hierarchies , in fact all animals have heiracies, they are hardwired in and 350 billion years old.

but, social engineereing has a massive influence, look as African tribes, they think its acceptable to marry and have sex with 10 year old girls, that takes some stretch of anyones moral hardwiring...

When I said people know whats right from wrong I was thinking more Western civilised societies.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Good point. I have never appreciated having great food more than when I was a kid and lived with cousins on their dairy farm. Most of what we ate they grew or raised and when appropriate, processed and stored for winter. Everyone of us, kids and adults, contributed something to our meals, snacks and desserts.

Homemade ice-cream, which we kids took turns churning by hand was unbelievably delicious. The wild berries and asparagus were not only fun to gather, they tasted wonderful. I wasn't excited when my cousin Winnie's husband slaughtered a year old male calf, but I don't think I've ever had better tasting beef since. Anyone who has tasted a home grown tomato, would wonder what the tasteless pale red things we get at the market are, because they sure don't taste like tomatoes.

These days the only hands on work I do for what I eat is buy it at the store and cook it on the stove or in the oven. Of course I worked my entire adult life and saved for my retirement income, which is what pays for the food I eat today.  

Did you suck your first dick on that farm?

[IRON CROSS]

Did you suck your first dick on that farm?

 

just drop my coffee 

[pellius]

I think morality is a mixture of hardwired in and social engineering

Listen to Jordan Petersons lobster theory about how lobsters have hierarchies , in fact all animals have heiracies, they are hardwired in and 350 billion years old.

but, social engineereing has a massive influence, look as African tribes, they think its acceptable to marry and have sex with 10 year old girls, that takes some stretch of anyones moral hardwiring...

When I said people know whats right from wrong I was thinking more Western civilised societies.

So Western civilization has a more "innate" sense of morality than African tribes? Why is that? How did a moral sense develop in humans but not animals?  

I'm not going to look up lobster behavior and what hierarchy, which I take to mean as "pecking order" has to do with morality. It's just who is the strongest or most powerful and then working your way down.

Still waiting for a specific response on the origins of morality. Just saying hardwired and culture is not a specific answer. How did it get hardwired? What caused society to develop a moral code to pass on to future generations? Was it reason? Evolution? Human nature? Utilitarianism?

[pellius]

Did you suck your first dick on that farm?

LMAO!

[Al Doggity]

Still waiting for a specific response on the origins of morality. Just saying hardwired and culture is not a specific answer. How did it get hardwired? What caused society to develop a moral code to pass on to future generations? Was it reason? Evolution? Human nature? Utilitarianism?

Not exactly sure where joswift is going, but it's undeniable that our views on morality change with the times and change under different circumstances. And different cultures do have different views on morality. So, that's a strong argument that morality is a human invention as opposed to a divine force.  The fact that ethical dilemmas exist is another. In one of your previous posts, you listed things that caused harm but werent immoral. The problem is that under certain circumstances, some of those things are arguably immoral.

[joswift]

So Western civilization has a more "innate" sense of morality than African tribes? Why is that? How did a moral sense develop in humans but not animals?  

I'm not going to look up lobster behavior and what hierarchy, which I take to mean as "pecking order" has to do with morality. It's just who is the strongest or most powerful and then working your way down.

Still waiting for a specific response on the origins of morality. Just saying hardwired and culture is not a specific answer. How did it get hardwired? What caused society to develop a moral code to pass on to future generations? Was it reason? Evolution? Human nature? Utilitarianism?

thats not how it works with civilised societies, heirachies are based on competence, not power

here is Jordans explanation

[deadz]

NO FREE LUNCHES IN THIS WORLD. WORK OF STARVE. TRUMP 2020.

[pellius]

thats not how it works with civilised societies, heirachies are based on competence, not power

here is Jordans explanation

OK, "competence" although I have found in the real world the most competent are the ones NOT leading the pack and running the show. Now back to the topic at hand, are you able to answer the question on the origins of morality?

And, as I said before, I'm not going to read any links or videos. Anybody can find anything on the net to support their views. I don't want to hear what Jordan has to say. I want to know what you have to say. We can go back and forth all day posting opposing links and videos. Let's think and argue for ourselves.

[AbrahamG]

Did you suck your first dick on that farm?

@Prime - I apologize for laughing like a hyena at this.

[joswift]

OK, "competence" although I have found in the real world the most competent are the ones NOT leading the pack and running the show. Now back to the topic at hand, are you able to answer the question on the origins of morality?

And, as I said before, I'm not going to read any links or videos. Anybody can find anything on the net to support their views. I don't want to hear what Jordan has to say. I want to know what you have to say. We can go back and forth all day posting opposing links and videos. Let's think and argue for ourselves.

I have explained 3 times, I have given my opinion and you just keep asking "why" like a 5 year old does, its not helpful..

I have said, its partly in or DNA and more so in or societal upbringing,

Now Im not going to say "God put it there" like you want me to to, lets just say its always been there.

Its like the question of where did the universe come from, you say God created it, I then ask who created God, you say , hes always been here, OK then lets just say the Universe has always been here and forget about God.

[pellius]

I have explained 3 times, I have given my opinion and you just keep asking "why" like a 5 year old does, its not helpful..

I have said, its partly in or DNA and more so in or societal upbringing,

Now Im not going to say "God put it there" like you want me to to, lets just say its always been there.

Its like the question of where did the universe come from, you say God created it, I then ask who created God, you say , hes always been here, OK then lets just say the Universe has always been here and forget about God.

No, you haven't. You have just given some vague "morality is based on indoctrination and culture". What? Maybe I getting too deep for you but that does not answer the basic question as to the origins of morality. Indoctrination? By who? Your parents and culture? Where did your parents get or develope these values? Same with society composed of other parents. I tried to make it easier for you by listing the common reasons atheists argue for the development and origins of moral values and even invited you to add any of your own.

Remember, you were the one who made the claim that there are no such things as inalienable human rights, a concept our country is based on. You think people have rights only because others say they do.

Rights are things other people allow you to have, there are no inalienable rights, they dont exist, rights are a man made construct..

[pellius]

I tell you what? I'll break it down even more and use a specific example. One that is considered pretty cut and dry -- murder.

Explain to me why murder is wrong? If you think that it is trivial or self-evident please indulge me. Why is murder wrong? And none of this, well it's against the law or because it violates the principle of harming others because that just begs the question why is it illegal or why is it wrong to harm others.

Often trying to explain what appears to be a simple concept becomes not so simple when it's broken down to its essence. If you can't do it, I understand. It's not as easy as people think. At least to those who have actually thought through the issue.

[joswift]

I tell you what? I'll break it down even more and use a specific example. One that is considered pretty cut and dry -- murder.

Explain to me why murder is wrong? If you think that it is trivial or self-evident please indulge me. Why is murder wrong? And none of this, well it's against the law or because it violates the principle of harming others because that just begs the question why is it illegal or why is it wrong to harm others.

Often trying to explain what appears to be a simple concept becomes not so simple when it's broken down to its essence. If you can't do it, I understand. It's not as easy as people think. At least to those who have actually thought through the issue.

Murder is against the law by definition, as Murder is a legal term, its defined as "unlawful killing", like I mentioned earlier, people in the old west were made "outlaws" and as such it was impossible to "murder" them as they didnt have the protection of law.

Now, as for killing someone, its wrong because people decided its wrong, animals kill each other all the time, they dont think its wrong, death is just a part of life.

As I said before we switched to morality we were talking about rights, people dedided that people have a right to life, thats why we created laws to protect people, and formed civilised societies, go look at at Africa, you have people dispensing street justice and chopping people up in the street, everyone watching joins in, not one of those people believe they are doing anything wrong, now, where are their morals?

[pellius]

Murder is against the law by definition, as Murder is a legal term, its defined as "unlawful killing", like I mentioned earlier, people in the old west were made "outlaws" and as such it was impossible to "murder" them as they didnt have the protection of law.

Now, as for killing someone, its wrong because people decided its wrong, animals kill each other all the time, they dont think its wrong, death is just a part of life.

As I said before we switched to morality we were talking about rights, people dedided that people have a right to life, thats why we created laws to protect people, and formed civilised societies, go look at at Africa, you have people dispensing street justice and chopping people up in the street, everyone watching joins in, not one of those people believe they are doing anything wrong, now, where are their morals?

This is what I mean when I implied you are not as thought through as you think you are. You say murder is wrong because people simply decided it was wrong. No reason given why they made this decision. You make it sound like they just tossed a coin. As you said, animals don't think it's wrong. "It's just a part of life." Aren't we animals? Why isn't killing part of "our life".

At least a more thought through person will give specifics like maybe make an evolutionary argument, such as why women are more choosy than men in picking someone to mate with. Or maybe they might say, well I wouldn't want you to murder me so I won't murder you and we come to an agreement that murder is wrong. No, you just say it's against the law. It's against the law by definition. No, it's not. There are cultures that celebrate murdering innocent people. There were, are cultures that engage in human sacrifices. In Palestine, your family gets a chunk of money and sometimes even a street named after you for killing Jews. Murder, is not defined as "unlawful killing" that's just begging the question. It's like me saying the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. Murder is the killing of an innocent person. A moral imperative. You conflate rules and laws with morality which are universal and unchanging. Inalienable human rights are very much tied to morality as they deal with absolute rights and wrongs.

BTW, your example of killing outlaws is not murder is irrelevant. Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Killing an outlaw, essentially capital punishment, is not murder.

[Powerlift66]

It is free already, isn't it? Some people hunt deer, fill their freezer stock for a year.