Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

We could have a much longer thread than this just arguing over the definition of dignity.

Well, yes.
My definition of dignity involves humans acting and treating others as humans. This means acting and treating others not as animals or instruments. It also means accepting being a frail, fallible, mortal human.

Hmm...

Does treating people as humans include altering your behavior based on social and cultural differences? Or simply allowing for the behavior of others? (They are, after all, fallible.) It just seems to me cultural context has a lot to do with how people define dignity.

dvpierce wrote:

resedit wrote:

It was dumb class - we were forbidden to use the greatest philosophy book of all time to back up any of our arguments.

Not dumb at all - too many people have only ever read the one philosophy book. The point of a class is to learn something new.

Yeah - that's what he said.
I think he still should have allowed it, and just gave students who used it in place of logic a big fat F.

resedit wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

resedit wrote:

It was dumb class - we were forbidden to use the greatest philosophy book of all time to back up any of our arguments.

Not dumb at all - too many people have only ever read the one philosophy book. The point of a class is to learn something new.

Yeah - that's what he said.
I think he still should have allowed it, and just gave students who used it in place of logic a big fat F.

He might have at some point. Leaves him wide open for claims of religious discrimination though.

Like it or not, very few people take Aristotle and Nietzsche as seriously as most people take the bible.

Tallgeese wrote:

On the other hand, some take Aristotle and Nietzsche far too seriously.

If only those who took them seriously got them right!

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

My Junior year for Ethics class I wrote a paper called "why be moral" that saved my grade.
I don't remember all the arguments but I believe it was along the lines that human advancement happens faster when we act as a social species, and the only way we can live as a social species is to have social boundaries which requires a sense of ethics and morality.

I do remember that I wrote it initially without any research - and after I wrote it - I flipped through the philosophy books looking for noted philosophers who had quotes I could use to support my argument (I figured no matter what I argued, I could find some noted philosophers who said something I could use as reference - I was right) and I'm guessing that helped me get the A. A on the paper anyway - C in the class. It was dumb class - we were forbidden to use the greatest philosophy book of all time to back up any of our arguments.

Anyway - I do think I hit the nail on the head as to why we have a desire for morality and ethics. Without it, we could not advance as a species.

The trouble is what sort of "morality" matters to us as a species is very open to debate. The right seems to think restricting sexual freedom is the most important thing while endorsing craven materialism and bestial greed. While the left tends to be more focused on freedom and economic equality.

And the left wants to force their morality from the top down via laws and sin taxes - such as their attack on the Tobacco and Firearms industry.

As if the right didnt have it's own laundry list they try to impose.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

My Junior year for Ethics class I wrote a paper called "why be moral" that saved my grade.
I don't remember all the arguments but I believe it was along the lines that human advancement happens faster when we act as a social species, and the only way we can live as a social species is to have social boundaries which requires a sense of ethics and morality.

I do remember that I wrote it initially without any research - and after I wrote it - I flipped through the philosophy books looking for noted philosophers who had quotes I could use to support my argument (I figured no matter what I argued, I could find some noted philosophers who said something I could use as reference - I was right) and I'm guessing that helped me get the A. A on the paper anyway - C in the class. It was dumb class - we were forbidden to use the greatest philosophy book of all time to back up any of our arguments.

Anyway - I do think I hit the nail on the head as to why we have a desire for morality and ethics. Without it, we could not advance as a species.

The trouble is what sort of "morality" matters to us as a species is very open to debate. The right seems to think restricting sexual freedom is the most important thing while endorsing craven materialism and bestial greed. While the left tends to be more focused on freedom and economic equality.

And the left wants to force their morality from the top down via laws and sin taxes - such as their attack on the Tobacco and Firearms industry.

How is the left attacking the tobacco industry?

It was a Christian college - and the prof was a Christian himself. Any lawsuit would have gone nowhere.

I suspect he did it because he was tired of seeing intelligent students turn their brain off when it came to religious matters.

radarman wrote:

Ah, so he should be a smurfing coward, then. A lot of problems with people reading the Bible stem from a lack of critical reasoning skills, and an inability to read for comprehension.

Critical Reasoning Skills? You don't need no fancy critical reasoning skills. The truth is in this book
::bangs fist on pulpit::
in plain language
::stentorian::

for all, not just the people who would seek to "interpret" and "analyze" the Lord's HOLY word to fit their own librul preconceptions of what God "means". It's all here, in the sacred language of the King's James Bible!

sturner wrote:

Jeez, you should read the bible in the orginal Latin!

Ummm, ok, in the orginal Greek?

Ummm, the orginal Hebrew?

don't make me dredge up dialects!

You forgot Aramaic and comparisons to the targums.