StarDestroyer.Net BBS

That's it- I don't have to take this. The abuse is one thing, but if you don't even understand the validity of the is-ought distinction then the friends of mine who said you people were beyond reasoning were right. I'm leaving.

Query for somebody who knows more Muslim theology- do their actions make sense in light of it? My first guess would be that it does- after all if Mohammed's idea of Islam is what is good then it follows that Western culture, which the universities have much of, will be corrupting as it tears people ...

Like you, in some areas I believe in absolutes and in others I believe in shades of grey. In my case, this is because the term "absolute" or "shade of grey" is merely a metaphor at best and therefore does not accurately describe reality. I'll start by demonstrating to you that it...

This is an area in which it isn't appropriate to speak in black and white. As a default assumption I would agree with you that IF and only IF a social contract exists then your rule is accurate. However, in this case there is reason to doubt it.

And ad hominem.

O.K, so you're at least conceding that the social contract is not universial. In that case, why not consider the possibility Maristan doesn't have a social contract with that implicit term? Things to note: -Maristan's racism is worse than the 1960s South, implying that minorities aren't considered t...

And how many states are there, and have there been, around the world which have no reference to the social contract in their political philosophy or their Constitution? Imagine trying to argue that nonsense in, say, ancient Assyria? In medieval Europe you might have found sympathy, but what about th...

Does his sect of Islam see a problem with outright lying? If it doesn't, then his actions could make sort of sense if he doesn't actually believe it and simply wants to discourage female drivers.

I am constantly surprised that the fact both the PM and the Premier's governments were democratically elected and that overthrowing them means overthrowing the will of the people doesn't come into play here. Formless, do you or do you not believe that The People have a right to sovereignty? To make ...

I'll do Thanas first.

Any law, which sentences citizens of a nation to death with no trial and no crime having been committed is an illegal one.

This is where we disagree. Why should this kind of law be arbitrarily illegal?

Just to be clear, I have already taken some of that into account- only intutions rooted in genetics, not culture, are applicable.

You assume I don't have evidence to back it there. Why are you so sure?

Stas Bush- One is a core human intuition, the other has severe problems.

Metahive- I disagree on the abstract thinking section. The evidence in this link is about autistics in general but:

http://oilf.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/aut ... nking.html

bilateralrope- Human intuitions.

Since we've brought up WWII, it occurs to me that by the ethical code Carinthium seems to support, people like Raoul Wallenberg or Chiune Sugihara (not to mention any actual Germans who helped Jews escape the Holocaust) would be contemptible criminals. Only if they have made a commitment, of their ...

So death is freedom now. Gotcha, Orwell. Oh, that's right. Libertarians are one of the lowest forms of life in the political ecosystem. They never take the possibility of disasters into account, and yet expect the fire department to come save their house when its their lives and property on the lin...

Knife: The best interests of an individual and society do not always coincide. It is a myth to claim that self-interest and being moral are completely compatible. Besides, if they did ethics would be pointless as people could simply focus on acting in their own self interest. So the question "w...

Another important argument: Any system which incorporates starting assumptions that are not self-evident automatically leads to subjectivism. Why? Because somebody can simply dispute your starting assumptions! Stas Bush: In a pretty obvious way: being more or less informed (and yes, people are infor...

This is going to take time, so I will post in stages. Simon Jester: I disagree with you on a lot of points. Ethics is the area of determining what objectively Is Right or Wrong morally, including what it means for something to be Right or Wrong. Even if I accept 1 and 2 ad arguendum, I dispute 3- st...

Read the first 20 articles of the human constitution, especially the first. Get back to me then. The purpose of ethics is to figure out what these articles are. If it hasn't, we have failed as ethicists. The reason we consider the show-trials to be immoral is because they were show-trials. Here is ...

Stas Bush, a suggestion here- maybe you should explain your meta-ethics? How do you get from "Everybody is inter-dependent" to "People have moral obligations to each other"?

This principle is, as stated, not binding. I choose to create a Tribunal beause I am a state and I shall do what I like. Your tribunal is as legitimate as the show-trials the Bolsheviks, the Viet Cong, or the French Revolutionaries put on. It is retrospective law and has the ethical status of those...

Maybe you should think about that for, like, five minutes. Every thread you post in turns into a shitfest of people telling you that you're spouting bullshit. Consider what possible conditions allow this situation to arise so repeatedly. The fact that, metaphorically speaking, this forum is a clash...

Alright, I'll divide it if that's your wish. On Jurisdiction: Pre-Nuremburg, states could do what they liked. It was even a principle of law that no treaty was legally binding. Therefore no pre-Nuremburg treaty could be a good enough basis for this. Post-Nuremburg, you could plausibly claim it was i...

My defence of that particular principle is that whenever a hypocritical action is judged in another human being, it is condemned, whether mildly in some cases or severely in others. An advocate of a moral principle tends to be dismissed automatically if they are a hypocrite. Therefore, although huma...

I can't help looking like a troll, can I? I honestly don't intend it- it just seems to be a curse following me all over this site! No, he assumes that the outcome - a crash, injury and/or death for both motorists, is morally undesirable. You can tell this because he used the word "undesirable&q...

Finally, somebody who isn't being an extremist about this. A few notes: My overall posistion is that none of these people should be punished. There was no legal jurisdiction for the international community or the Karaks in these cases. A: The idea was that, because the strategic targets of the invad...