An atheist philosophy of life, per Albert Camus

[Daylight63]

The more I learn about history

LOL.

"learn".


LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Daylight63]

Jefferson is an interesting case.

He knew that slavery was wrong morally.

But he was constantly in debt, and not a particularly good businessman, so he seemed to have felt compelled to keep his slaves as a necessary economic asset.

He seems to have made some promises to Sally Hemmings that he either didn't keep, or was glacier-slow to make good on. And I think the social expectations of a promise was reasonably similar in both 18th and 21st century.

You're so smart, Cy. You and Dutch Cankles should get together and start a THINK TANK.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I like to catch it in my mouth

 

[Daylight63]

Ahhhh, Dutch Cankles and his li'l Buddy Cy.

Hey, Brainiacs, why don'tcha talk about TEXT ANALYTICS next!

 

[Daylight63]

The funniest thing about ANY Cypress and Dutch Cankles thread is when they get into the back and forth rub-fest.

 

[Daylight63]

Hey @Dutch Uncle : It looks like you have changed your name a lot on this forum. Can you tell me how you change names?

Can I also ask why you changed yours so often?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Perry is soooo easy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Jefferson is an interesting case.

He knew that slavery was wrong morally.

But he was constantly in debt, and not a particularly good businessman, so he seemed to have felt compelled to keep his slaves as a necessary economic asset.

He seems to have made some promises to Sally Hemmings that he either didn't keep, or was glacier-slow to make good on. And I think the social expectations of a promise was reasonably similar in both 18th and 21st century.

One point of difference between you and I is the subject of social mores. Despite the triggered and deranged accusations you are an atheist, the fact you believe there's a "universal" set of morals in human beings proves you are not. As moral relativists such as myself believe "morals are what you make them". Morals imply emotional and a little "common sense". A moral relativist understands different cultures can have different morals. The study of human history details the parameters of "what is too much and what is not enough". Logic should rue the day.

Is marrying 9 year olds bad? Only if it's a homosexual marriage? Can kids own guns? At what age and why? Should AI rule our society for our betterment?

A ship sinks leaving hundreds of passengers in freezing temperatures. Anyone on the water longer than 45 minutes will most certainly die. You are the captain of a lifeboat built to hold 30 and you are now carrying over 45. The boat is in danger of swamping when passengers in the water start rocking it, endangering the lives of all aboard. Is it "moral" to shoot them in the head or whack them with an oar. Even if you don't hurt them but only pushing them away, you are condemning them to death by hypothermia and/or drowning.

Spoiler: My "moral" decisions.

It depends. Shouldn't matter on sex, only age. Yes. Level of maturity which usually occurs with kids in their teens. IDK about AI, but do think it's a great tool.

Yes. Kill some to save many.

 

[EdwinA]

CAmus at least gets points for pointing out the left should avoid supporting 'Palestinian' terrorists and other freak shows, even if he was a blithering loon, like all the other commie fans.

I am quite familiar with Camus.

Then you should know he was a fence sitter.

 

[Cypress]

"investigate". Is that what you call going on Wikipedia?

No, I'll probably go back and review a book I have called "Death, Dying, and the Afterlife: Lessons from World Cultures" by professor Mark Berkson. A little taste of which is below.


Chapter 17: Suicide Examined

Let’s begin considering the argument that we have a right to end our own lives when we want and on our terms. The Stoic philosopher Seneca said that your death is ultimately your business alone.

In modern times, another vigorous defense of the right to suicide came from controversial psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. Szasz was guided by libertarian convictions, including a devotion to liberty and personal autonomy. He argued that efforts at suicide prevention—particularly the practice of involuntary commitment—are ultimately forms of social control.

Let us now look at the other side of the argument: the view that we should always intervene to stop a person from committing suicide. Edwin Schneidman was a leading figure in the field of suicidology, professor of UCLA, and author of over 20 books on suicide and suicide prevention. Schneidman argued that, in general, people do not have a single, unified desire for suicide. They are conflicted, ambivalent. So it is naive to speak of the desire for suicide as representing a person’s unified, autonomous will. Furthermore, people who are suffering from a mental illness cannot always make choices that are in their best interests.

 

[Cypress]

One point of difference between you and I is the subject of social mores. Despite the triggered and deranged accusations you are an atheist, the fact you believe there's a "universal" set of morals in human beings proves you are not. As moral relativists such as myself believe "morals are what you make them". Morals imply emotional and a little "common sense". A moral relativist understands different cultures can have different morals. The study of human history details the parameters of "what is too much and what is not enough". Logic should rue the day.

Is marrying 9 year olds bad? Only if it's a homosexual marriage? Can kids own guns? At what age and why? Should AI rule our society for our betterment?

I actually think there is a relatively small set of universal values (murder, genocide, cheating, child abuse, etc.), and that cultural norms indeed have significant variation.

A ship sinks leaving hundreds of passengers in freezing temperatures. Anyone on the water longer than 45 minutes will most certainly die. You are the captain of a lifeboat built to hold 30 and you are now carrying over 45. The boat is in danger of swamping when passengers in the water start rocking it, endangering the lives of all aboard. Is it "moral" to shoot them in the head or whack them with an oar. Even if you don't hurt them but only pushing them away, you are condemning them to death by hypothermia and/or drowning.

I think when abandoning ship, the decision needs to be made beforehand that children, mothers, and other women get space in the lifeboats first, and then figure out if there's any room left. That's a rule that might need to be enforced by an armed crewman, cause some dudes will panic.

Spoiler: My "moral" decisions.

It depends. Shouldn't matter on sex, only age. Yes. Level of maturity which usually occurs with kids in their teens. IDK about AI, but do think it's a great tool.

Yes. Kill some to save many.

I like these kind of puzzles. Here is my contribution.


Who do you pick up?

It is a dark and stormy night, and you’re driving in your sports car, which has only two seats. Suddenly, by the side of the road, you see three people stranded at a bus stop.

One is a stranger who is having a heart attack at that very moment. Another is a childhood friend who has often saved your life and has long been begging to ride in your sports car. The third person is the man or woman of your dreams—your soul mate—whom you may never see again. You have just one empty seat in your car. Who do you pick up?



The solution requires you to stop thinking that you have to pick up just one person and that only you can be behind the wheel. Ask your friend to drive the heart attack victim to the nearest hospital, then wrap your coat around the person of your dreams.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I actually think there is a relatively small set of universal values (murder, genocide, cheating, child abuse, etc.), and that cultural norms indeed have significant variation.

I think when abandoning ship, the decision needs to be made beforehand that children, mothers, and other women get space in the lifeboats first, and then figure out if there's any room left. That's a rule that might need to be enforced by an armed crewman, cause some dudes will panic.



I like these kind of puzzles. Here is my contribution.


Who do you pick up?

It is a dark and stormy night, and you’re driving in your sports car, which has only two seats. Suddenly, by the side of the road, you see three people stranded at a bus stop.

One is a stranger who is having a heart attack at that very moment. Another is a childhood friend who has often saved your life and has long been begging to ride in your sports car. The third person is the man or woman of your dreams—your soul mate—whom you may never see again. You have just one empty seat in your car. Who do you pick up?



The solution requires you to stop thinking that you have to pick up just one person and that only you can be behind the wheel. Ask your friend to drive the heart attack victim to the nearest hospital, then wrap your coat around the person of your dreams.

Ethics questions are always fun. IMO, unless the problem can be solved logically, a lot of the answers are "it depends".

Some cultures have murder as a cultural norm, such as the practice of dueling in Europe or "honor killings". The Bible advises genocide a few times.* Cheating is relative, often only admonishing women. The Bible again so "abuse" is relative: "Spare the rod, spoil the child"**.

The only way I see where a "universal morality" is as a society, not as individuals. Some societies thrive and grow, some wither and die. A difference seems to be their choices of social norms. Ergo, social evolution can be measured within a range of "moral" choices. Like evolution, the environment determines the range of surviving societies. Warrior? Agrarian? Fishing?

Thanks for the logic puzzle!


*e.g. Deuteronomy 20:17

**Proverbs 13:24