'Couple detained in UAE for sex outside marriage'

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

'Couple detained in UAE for sex outside marriage'

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Mar 17 5.22pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 As I've said, by looking at the outcomes. You know, communist philosophers like Marx predicting a utopia, eg: Capitalism isn't really do too well in Russia either. Which is interesting, because Putin has massive popular support. In Russia, common sense is that Putin is right. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Mar 17 5.22pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

As I've said, by looking at the outcomes. You know, communist philosophers like Marx predicting a utopia, eg:

Capitalism isn't really do too well in Russia either. Which is interesting, because Putin has massive popular support. In Russia, common sense is that Putin is right.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Mar 17 5.25pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Capitalism isn't really do too well in Russia either. Which is interesting, because Putin has massive popular support. In Russia, common sense is that Putin is right. Putin's Russia is far from perfect, but common sense tells us that it is far preferable to the communist charnel house that was there before. Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 5.25pm) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 09 Mar 17 5.25pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Capitalism isn't really do too well in Russia either. Which is interesting, because Putin has massive popular support. In Russia, common sense is that Putin is right.

Putin's Russia is far from perfect, but common sense tells us that it is far preferable to the communist charnel house that was there before.

Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 5.25pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Mar 17 5.27pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I'm not sure how you could build that into a legal system, which was the question originally? How can you basis a legal system around common sense, without applying philosophical reasoning? Also the thing that will fk Corbyn's chances up of winning an election isn't common sense, its the SNP. Labour cannot hope to win an election without a strong return of seats in Scotland. No Labour leader will win an election in the UK unless the Tory's monumentally fk themselves, or the SNP do. I'm not sure how you could build philosophy into a legal system - which of the many contradictory philosophies would you use? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 09 Mar 17 5.27pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I'm not sure how you could build that into a legal system, which was the question originally? How can you basis a legal system around common sense, without applying philosophical reasoning?

Also the thing that will f**k Corbyn's chances up of winning an election isn't common sense, its the SNP. Labour cannot hope to win an election without a strong return of seats in Scotland. No Labour leader will win an election in the UK unless the Tory's monumentally f**k themselves, or the SNP do.

I'm not sure how you could build philosophy into a legal system - which of the many contradictory philosophies would you use?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Mar 17 5.36pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I'm not sure how you could build philosophy into a legal system - which of the many contradictory philosophies would you use? The philosophy of law. The basis of UK law, and its practice is based in philosophy, notably jurisprudence, ethics and logic. Its not all whether desks exist when you're not thinking about them, or I think therefore I am. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Mar 17 5.36pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I'm not sure how you could build philosophy into a legal system - which of the many contradictory philosophies would you use?

The philosophy of law. The basis of UK law, and its practice is based in philosophy, notably jurisprudence, ethics and logic.

Its not all whether desks exist when you're not thinking about them, or I think therefore I am.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Mar 17 5.42pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The philosophy of law. The basis of UK law, and its practice is based in philosophy, notably jurisprudence, ethics and logic. Its not all whether desks exist when you're not thinking about them, or I think therefore I am. I thought it was to protect property and oppress the workers? Oh, and to give 'rights' to various minority interests. Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 5.45pm) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 09 Mar 17 5.42pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The philosophy of law. The basis of UK law, and its practice is based in philosophy, notably jurisprudence, ethics and logic.

Its not all whether desks exist when you're not thinking about them, or I think therefore I am.

I thought it was to protect property and oppress the workers? Oh, and to give 'rights' to various minority interests.

Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 5.45pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Mar 17 6.09pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 No, because ethics must be reasoned, and logical sound - and typically serves towards the morality to which it transgresses. So killing someone is morally wrong. But in acting in self defence, we would claim that the action of self defence or the defence of others serves that morality because it paradoxically prevents the killing of someone else. As such, we are still acting within that ideal (that its wrong to kill by establishing that taking a life to save a life, serves the same good. Ethically, we then proscribe certain 'ethical' actions around such an action, such as the use of reasonable force, that the party acted in a manner that did not provoke the situation - ie that the action was 'regrettably but necessary to preserve 'morality'. So something is ethical, even if its immoral, because it serves a greater good. This is tricky for me, because I don't really ascribe to the idea that morality is anything more than the current socially defined limits of societies ethics. Isn't that rather what I just said? Surely what is sound and logical is opinion in the absence of facts. If I kill 1 to save 10 that is reasonable to me but will not necessarily lead to a perceptibly better outcome in the end. One of those 10 could be a serial killer or the man who starts WW3. Surely ethics and morality are all as you suggest socially defined and therefore little more than fashion. They are an abstraction in that sense. Where it gets more interesting and complex is how the idea of free will to decide these things either individually or by consensus is impacted by evolutionary pressures. Society needs a certain level of cooperation to exist and that involves what could be described as moral codes or codes of behavior and this must go hand on hand with survival strategies. How we behave gives us the best chance of passing on genes, either ours or a close relative or by protecting our offspring. That is what the game is all about ultimately. If I kill 1 to save 10 I am likely doing it because it increases my chances of perpetuating similar genes to my own, if not my own, even if it is an imperceptible and indirect way linked to probability.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Mar 17 6.09pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

No, because ethics must be reasoned, and logical sound - and typically serves towards the morality to which it transgresses.

So killing someone is morally wrong. But in acting in self defence, we would claim that the action of self defence or the defence of others serves that morality because it paradoxically prevents the killing of someone else.

As such, we are still acting within that ideal (that its wrong to kill by establishing that taking a life to save a life, serves the same good.

Ethically, we then proscribe certain 'ethical' actions around such an action, such as the use of reasonable force, that the party acted in a manner that did not provoke the situation - ie that the action was 'regrettably but necessary to preserve 'morality'.

So something is ethical, even if its immoral, because it serves a greater good.

This is tricky for me, because I don't really ascribe to the idea that morality is anything more than the current socially defined limits of societies ethics.

Isn't that rather what I just said?

Surely what is sound and logical is opinion in the absence of facts. If I kill 1 to save 10 that is reasonable to me but will not necessarily lead to a perceptibly better outcome in the end. One of those 10 could be a serial killer or the man who starts WW3.

Surely ethics and morality are all as you suggest socially defined and therefore little more than fashion. They are an abstraction in that sense.
Where it gets more interesting and complex is how the idea of free will to decide these things either individually or by consensus is impacted by evolutionary pressures. Society needs a certain level of cooperation to exist and that involves what could be described as moral codes or codes of behavior and this must go hand on hand with survival strategies.
How we behave gives us the best chance of passing on genes, either ours or a close relative or by protecting our offspring. That is what the game is all about ultimately. If I kill 1 to save 10 I am likely doing it because it increases my chances of perpetuating similar genes to my own, if not my own, even if it is an imperceptible and indirect way linked to probability.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Mar 17 6.37pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Isn't that rather what I just said? Surely what is sound and logical is opinion in the absence of facts. If I kill 1 to save 10 that is reasonable to me but will not necessarily lead to a perceptibly better outcome in the end. One of those 10 could be a serial killer or the man who starts WW3. Surely ethics and morality are all as you suggest socially defined and therefore little more than fashion. They are an abstraction in that sense. Where it gets more interesting and complex is how the idea of free will to decide these things either individually or by consensus is impacted by evolutionary pressures. Society needs a certain level of cooperation to exist and that involves what could be described as moral codes or codes of behavior and this must go hand on hand with survival strategies. How we behave gives us the best chance of passing on genes, either ours or a close relative or by protecting our offspring. That is what the game is all about ultimately. If I kill 1 to save 10 I am likely doing it because it increases my chances of perpetuating similar genes to my own, if not my own, even if it is an imperceptible and indirect way linked to probability. This is a dangerous idea. Communists like historian Eric Hobsbawm have said that the millions of lives lost under Stalin would have been worth it if a future communist society came about. Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 6.37pm) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 09 Mar 17 6.37pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Isn't that rather what I just said?

Surely what is sound and logical is opinion in the absence of facts. If I kill 1 to save 10 that is reasonable to me but will not necessarily lead to a perceptibly better outcome in the end. One of those 10 could be a serial killer or the man who starts WW3.

This is a dangerous idea. Communists like historian Eric Hobsbawm have said that the millions of lives lost under Stalin would have been worth it if a future communist society came about.

Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 6.37pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Mar 17 6.49pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 This is a dangerous idea. Communists like historian Eric Hobsbawm have said that the millions of lives lost under Stalin would have been worth it if a future communist society came about. Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 6.37pm) Well it certainly highlights the futility of making decisions based on morality or ethics and expecting that it will bring about a series of events that will be 'better'. One is reminded of Blackadder's Christmas Carol.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Mar 17 6.49pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

This is a dangerous idea. Communists like historian Eric Hobsbawm have said that the millions of lives lost under Stalin would have been worth it if a future communist society came about.

Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 6.37pm)

Well it certainly highlights the futility of making decisions based on morality or ethics and expecting that it will bring about a series of events that will be 'better'.

One is reminded of Blackadder's Christmas Carol.

Alert a moderator to this post

Direwolf Lincoln 09 Mar 17 7.47pm
So anyway...are there any more pics of her in a bikini?
Alert a moderator to this post

Direwolf

Lincoln 09 Mar 17 7.47pm

So anyway...are there any more pics of her in a bikini?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 9.31am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Isn't that rather what I just said? Surely what is sound and logical is opinion in the absence of facts. If I kill 1 to save 10 that is reasonable to me but will not necessarily lead to a perceptibly better outcome in the end. One of those 10 could be a serial killer or the man who starts WW3. Surely ethics and morality are all as you suggest socially defined and therefore little more than fashion. They are an abstraction in that sense. Where it gets more interesting and complex is how the idea of free will to decide these things either individually or by consensus is impacted by evolutionary pressures. Society needs a certain level of cooperation to exist and that involves what could be described as moral codes or codes of behavior and this must go hand on hand with survival strategies. How we behave gives us the best chance of passing on genes, either ours or a close relative or by protecting our offspring. That is what the game is all about ultimately. If I kill 1 to save 10 I am likely doing it because it increases my chances of perpetuating similar genes to my own, if not my own, even if it is an imperceptible and indirect way linked to probability. Ethics aren't defined individually though, they're the product of individual and group constructions. As for something to be 'an ethical argument' it has to stand up to ethical interrogation by others. As such those actions would be unethical, because you couldn't prove that your actions served a greater good, only that you believed they did. Its not enough to simply believe something, ethically and even morally, one must be able to convince others of the 'truth'. Even then it would be questionable whether it was moral to kill that person, rather than to dissuade them, or otherwise undermine their chances of becoming that person. Remember killing is immoral, and as such is ethically justified only as a last resort. Society manufactures ethics in order to achieve the basis of social functionality. Where as dicatorships and theocracies tend to imposed moral codes, as the basis of social functions. Ethics, and philosophy (Western) in general are more a series of historical discourses on subjects conducted since around 5BC to present day. Evolutionary and Neurophilosophy are interesting areas - If I don't have free will, ethics and morality are irrelevant. And its important when considering evolutionary arguments to remember that the biology does not deal with individuals, or individual behaviour (so biology really limits free will, whilst psychology for example demonstrates agency). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Mar 17 9.31am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Isn't that rather what I just said?

Ethics aren't defined individually though, they're the product of individual and group constructions. As for something to be 'an ethical argument' it has to stand up to ethical interrogation by others. As such those actions would be unethical, because you couldn't prove that your actions served a greater good, only that you believed they did.

Its not enough to simply believe something, ethically and even morally, one must be able to convince others of the 'truth'. Even then it would be questionable whether it was moral to kill that person, rather than to dissuade them, or otherwise undermine their chances of becoming that person. Remember killing is immoral, and as such is ethically justified only as a last resort.

Society manufactures ethics in order to achieve the basis of social functionality. Where as dicatorships and theocracies tend to imposed moral codes, as the basis of social functions.

Ethics, and philosophy (Western) in general are more a series of historical discourses on subjects conducted since around 5BC to present day.

Evolutionary and Neurophilosophy are interesting areas - If I don't have free will, ethics and morality are irrelevant. And its important when considering evolutionary arguments to remember that the biology does not deal with individuals, or individual behaviour (so biology really limits free will, whilst psychology for example demonstrates agency).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 9.39am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 This is a dangerous idea. Communists like historian Eric Hobsbawm have said that the millions of lives lost under Stalin would have been worth it if a future communist society came about. Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 6.37pm) Its a false argument, based in outmoded concepts of Utilitarianism and the idea of a greater good. The murderous regimes of the Communists could never achieve a desirable society to live in, how could it. The society produced by murderous regimes are pretty much the regimes they produced - which have never been desirable utopias. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Mar 17 9.39am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

This is a dangerous idea. Communists like historian Eric Hobsbawm have said that the millions of lives lost under Stalin would have been worth it if a future communist society came about.

Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 6.37pm)

Its a false argument, based in outmoded concepts of Utilitarianism and the idea of a greater good. The murderous regimes of the Communists could never achieve a desirable society to live in, how could it.

The society produced by murderous regimes are pretty much the regimes they produced - which have never been desirable utopias.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 9.40am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Well it certainly highlights the futility of making decisions based on morality or ethics and expecting that it will bring about a series of events that will be 'better'. One is reminded of Blackadder's Christmas Carol. Rhetorical arguments aren't philosophy, its sophistry (aka Politics). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Mar 17 9.40am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Well it certainly highlights the futility of making decisions based on morality or ethics and expecting that it will bring about a series of events that will be 'better'.

One is reminded of Blackadder's Christmas Carol.

Rhetorical arguments aren't philosophy, its sophistry (aka Politics).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

'Couple detained in UAE for sex outside marriage'

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors