Who determines the Maxim: the moral Law?

[zaangalewa]

Accusing me of what you are doing is not a sign of intelligence, Taz.

To get back on topic, a lot of single parents raised good children, just like a ton of marriages have broken up and children do just fine, as well as a lot of 2 parent families are screwed up, children get beaten or worse... or the kids turn out to be total losers...

All true, but you are arguing the exception as the rule which is false.

As a rule a child is best served by having a male and a female role model in his or her life.

That's YOUR rule, not nature's. Nature has a whole variety of ways to raise offspring.

No. It's natures way as nature has chosen male female pairs for procreation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There almost always are.

I'm not even sure if having 2 parents the whole time is even the dominant method in nature to raise offspring. And even among humans, plenty of successful outcomes have arisen from non-2 parent families. And look at you and hob, I bet that both of you had 2 parents. So really, it doesn't prove much, except maybe a preference among humans to be coupled, which we already knew.

Kindergarten problems? Every bee has a mother queen and a father drone. This are the biological parents. And every bee has lots of sisters or brothers: this are the social parents. A baby bee needs a beehive and a human being a village full of people for growing.

 

[Taz]

To get back on topic, a lot of single parents raised good children, just like a ton of marriages have broken up and children do just fine, as well as a lot of 2 parent families are screwed up, children get beaten or worse... or the kids turn out to be total losers...

All true, but you are arguing the exception as the rule which is false.

As a rule a child is best served by having a male and a female role model in his or her life.

That's YOUR rule, not nature's. Nature has a whole variety of ways to raise offspring.

No. It's natures way as nature has chosen male female pairs for procreation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There almost always are.

I'm not even sure if having 2 parents the whole time is even the dominant method in nature to raise offspring. And even among humans, plenty of successful outcomes have arisen from non-2 parent families. And look at you and hob, I bet that both of you had 2 parents. So really, it doesn't prove much, except maybe a preference among humans to be coupled, which we already knew.

Kindergarten problems? Every bee has a mother queen and a father drone. This are the biological parents. And every bee has lots of sisters or brothers: this are the social parents. A baby bee needs a beehive and a human being a village full of people for growing.

When you figure out what you're trying to say, please come back and try again.

 

[G.T.]

"everything is relative" - Ding

 

[zaangalewa]

"everything is relative" - Ding

That's by the way not what Albert Einstein "said". He "said" space and time are relative to the absolute constant value "speed of light in vacuum". In this context exists also an interesting version of the "stupid" formula 1/1=1. 1 Plank-length / 1 Plank-time = 1 c (speed of light).

Marx said "I am not a Marxist". Einstein said not "I am not a relativist" - but I am sure he would say so, if he would live today.

 

[zaangalewa]

All true, but you are arguing the exception as the rule which is false.

As a rule a child is best served by having a male and a female role model in his or her life.

That's YOUR rule, not nature's. Nature has a whole variety of ways to raise offspring.

No. It's natures way as nature has chosen male female pairs for procreation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There almost always are.

I'm not even sure if having 2 parents the whole time is even the dominant method in nature to raise offspring. And even among humans, plenty of successful outcomes have arisen from non-2 parent families. And look at you and hob, I bet that both of you had 2 parents. So really, it doesn't prove much, except maybe a preference among humans to be coupled, which we already knew.

Kindergarten problems? Every bee has a mother queen and a father drone. This are the biological parents. And every bee has lots of sisters or brothers: this are the social parents. A baby bee needs a beehive and a human being a village full of people for growing.

When you figure out what you're trying to say, please come back and try again.

Try to live like a bee then you will understand what the problem is. The world is word of god - but no one becomes a bee because he likes to be a bee.

 

[ding]

Morality is about the survival of mainstream society.
Wise people determine that some behaviors are bad for mainstream society.
Amoral people self-destruct and amoral societies self-destruct.
For instance, it everyone stole instead of worked, that society would starve.

Amorality is worse than immorality. At least people who promote immorality - such as the left does - believe they are being moral. Amorality is literally intended to lead to anarchy whereby the concept of right and wrong does not exist at all.

 

[ding]

"everything is relative" - Ding

Taken totally out of context because you cannot argue the merit of your case.

 

[ding]

All true, but you are arguing the exception as the rule which is false.

As a rule a child is best served by having a male and a female role model in his or her life.

That's YOUR rule, not nature's. Nature has a whole variety of ways to raise offspring.

No. It's natures way as nature has chosen male female pairs for procreation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There almost always are.

I'm not even sure if having 2 parents the whole time is even the dominant method in nature to raise offspring. And even among humans, plenty of successful outcomes have arisen from non-2 parent families. And look at you and hob, I bet that both of you had 2 parents. So really, it doesn't prove much, except maybe a preference among humans to be coupled, which we already knew.

And yet a male and a female role model continues to be the standard.

It seems I have found your sore spot.

Male-female is the dominant coupling among humans, that's obvious, so no sore spot. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure that it's the dominant coupling in nature where most males take off after insemination. So that's how your god made the world, with male-female coupling as a secondary coupling.

We are discussing human beings though. It started with your post #21.

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

Not to mention that man is the only animal who has knowledge of good and evil. The rest of nature operates on impulse and instinct. Man does too but he has the unique ability to override his impulse and instinct for the sake of good; right and wrong.

I don't have anything against homosexuals or transgenders. I just don't believe we should define the exception as the rule.

The standard for human beings, established by the laws of nature, is one man and one woman.

 

[G.T.]

"everything is relative" - Ding

Taken totally out of context because you cannot argue the merit of your case.

My case? Youre a really confused individual.

 

[Taz]

That's YOUR rule, not nature's. Nature has a whole variety of ways to raise offspring.

No. It's natures way as nature has chosen male female pairs for procreation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There almost always are.

I'm not even sure if having 2 parents the whole time is even the dominant method in nature to raise offspring. And even among humans, plenty of successful outcomes have arisen from non-2 parent families. And look at you and hob, I bet that both of you had 2 parents. So really, it doesn't prove much, except maybe a preference among humans to be coupled, which we already knew.

Kindergarten problems? Every bee has a mother queen and a father drone. This are the biological parents. And every bee has lots of sisters or brothers: this are the social parents. A baby bee needs a beehive and a human being a village full of people for growing.

When you figure out what you're trying to say, please come back and try again.

Try to live like a bee then you will understand what the problem is. The world is word of god - but no one becomes a bee because he likes to be a bee.

Still makes no sense. Last try.

 

[ding]

"everything is relative" - Ding

Taken totally out of context because you cannot argue the merit of your case.

My case? Youre a really confused individual.

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

 

[ding]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

If all one ever did was to make counter arguments in life they would have to go through life only knowing what something wasn't. They would never be able to articulate what it was.

This kind of behavior is a disease which has affected our country.

 

[G.T.]

"everything is relative" - Ding

Taken totally out of context because you cannot argue the merit of your case.

My case? Youre a really confused individual.

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

You are reaching, and thats just because youre rationalizing your lameness. Youre excluded from my rationao discussions because you are fucking stupid.

 

[ding]

"everything is relative" - Ding

Taken totally out of context because you cannot argue the merit of your case.

My case? Youre a really confused individual.

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

You are reaching, and thats just because youre rationalizing your lameness. Youre excluded from my rationao discussions because you are fucking stupid.

You are demonstrating you have a need to lash out against me. I am demonstrating I have no need to lash out against you.

You have to ask yourself why people have a need to lash out.

 

[G.T.]

"everything is relative" - Ding

Taken totally out of context because you cannot argue the merit of your case.

My case? Youre a really confused individual.

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

You are reaching, and thats just because youre rationalizing your lameness. Youre excluded from my rationao discussions because you are fucking stupid.

You are demonstrating you have a need to lash out against me. I am demonstrating I have no need to lash out against you.

You have to ask yourself why people have a need to lash out.

No, ding. You are demonstrating that you have a lame and prissy game playing mentality is what youre doing. And thinking it fools anyone....is because you are fucking stupid, ding.

 

[ding]

Taken totally out of context because you cannot argue the merit of your case.

My case? Youre a really confused individual.

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

You are reaching, and thats just because youre rationalizing your lameness. Youre excluded from my rationao discussions because you are fucking stupid.

You are demonstrating you have a need to lash out against me. I am demonstrating I have no need to lash out against you.

You have to ask yourself why people have a need to lash out.

No, ding. You are demonstrating that you have a lame and prissy game playing mentality is what youre doing. And thinking it fools anyone....is because you are fucking stupid, ding.

How so, GT?

 

[G.T.]

My case? Youre a really confused individual.

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

You are reaching, and thats just because youre rationalizing your lameness. Youre excluded from my rationao discussions because you are fucking stupid.

You are demonstrating you have a need to lash out against me. I am demonstrating I have no need to lash out against you.

You have to ask yourself why people have a need to lash out.

No, ding. You are demonstrating that you have a lame and prissy game playing mentality is what youre doing. And thinking it fools anyone....is because you are fucking stupid, ding.

How so, GT?

Its self evident to rational humans, dingerred. Have a blessed day.

 

[ding]

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

You are reaching, and thats just because youre rationalizing your lameness. Youre excluded from my rationao discussions because you are fucking stupid.

You are demonstrating you have a need to lash out against me. I am demonstrating I have no need to lash out against you.

You have to ask yourself why people have a need to lash out.

No, ding. You are demonstrating that you have a lame and prissy game playing mentality is what youre doing. And thinking it fools anyone....is because you are fucking stupid, ding.

How so, GT?

Its self evident to rational humans, dingerred. Have a blessed day.

If it is self evident to rational humans, then it shouldn't be that hard for you to articulate how I have demonstrated my lame and prissy game playing mentality, right?

 

[ding]

You mean you don't have a position on moral law?

I knew as much, your only objective is to grind your ax.

Thus proving this is personal.

I don't have that problem.

You are reaching, and thats just because youre rationalizing your lameness. Youre excluded from my rationao discussions because you are fucking stupid.

You are demonstrating you have a need to lash out against me. I am demonstrating I have no need to lash out against you.

You have to ask yourself why people have a need to lash out.

No, ding. You are demonstrating that you have a lame and prissy game playing mentality is what youre doing. And thinking it fools anyone....is because you are fucking stupid, ding.

How so, GT?

Its self evident to rational humans, dingerred. Have a blessed day.

I hope you find your peace, GT.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Chapter 9 Kantian Theory : The Categorical Imperative

Who determines what the moral law requires?

The Pope? Nope.
The President? Congress? Nope.
Your parents? Nope.
The Bible? Nope.
The majority of those in your community or culture? Nope.

It is not a person, nor a group of persons who determine what the moral law requires of you. It is YOU. It is your reason.

And that is not because "nobody knows your life better than you." It is not because you think differently than others. It is not because you have different personal goals. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are different than other people. It has nothing to do with you as an individual.

For Kant, what determines what the law requires is exactly the same as that which makes you infinitely valuable -- your freedom, your ability to choose. And it is your reason that allows for that. Without reason, there is no freedom. Without reason, there is no capacity to choose. Therefore the life of morality requires that you/we all act in accord with reason -- because it is reason which is the source of our freedom, our autonomy, our dignity.

In short, you determine the right thing to do by appealing to your own universalizing and impartial rationality. It so happens that, since all human beings are rational in precisely the same way -- in virtue, that is, of being able to think abstractly and in terms of universal laws -- what you ought to do in situation A,B,C is exactly the same as what someone else ought to do in situation A,B,C.

Who Determines the Maxim: the moral Law ?

Human behavior does not reflect a moral imperative, that much is easily demonstrate by the use of chemical weapons and the rhetoric which cause some to vote for Donald Trump - and ever bit of irrational behavior in between.

"In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant achieves a synthesis between rationalist and empiricist traditions. Rationalism, it takes up the idea that pure reason is capable of important knowledge, and empiricism, he admits the idea that knowledge comes primarily from the experience."