Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Only Solution for Present Day Corruption

dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:50:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only solution for this is to revert back to the ancient system and concentrate on spiritual education. Today, the government does not spend a single rupee on the propagation of spiritual education. Only a few persons in private and personal sector like saints are taking interest in propagating the spiritual education. Atleast, the huge funds of very important temples like Tirupati should be spent on the propagation of spiritual education. You are starting colleges and universities with the funds of such temple, in which again the materialistic education is propagated. Kings used to construct huge temples and spend lot of money on temples. In fact, these temples were the universities in which learned professors of the spiritual education propagated the spiritual knowledge in the humanity. Lot of encouragement was given by kings to this spiritual knowledge, which controls crime and corruption from the basic level itself.

Even if you spend 1/10th of what you spend on the control of crime and corruption for the sake of the propagation of spiritual knowledge, the crime and corruption will disappear from the root itself. The government should open its eyes on this basic issue and reform the education system in the light of this concept. The negligence of the present blind government on spiritual education is the main reason for the present crime and corruption in the society. The present system of education stressing mainly on science and technology for improving the amenities of humanity is the reason for the environmental pollution and the future untimely global destruction. If you revert back to the ancient education system, every human being will come out as a citizen with in-built aversion to corruption and crime. Such ancient education, concentrated on God, will also reduce the over attachment to amenities and this will lead to ecological balance and global safety.

For the sake of control of crime and corruption, the existence of God need not be accepted. Such acceptance will be based on falsehood and such realization is not real. Moreover, the result of such false realization will not be true also. It means that the control of crime and corruption cannot be achieved by forcing you to accept the existence of God for the sake of control of corruption and crime. The realization of existence of God should be independent and should not be for any purpose. Whether the crime and corruption are controlled or not, the existence of God should be realized on its own merit and truth. What I mean to say is that the ancient scholars did not create the concept of God for the sake of control of crime and corruption to achieve the balance of society. The existence of God was realized as the independent concept on the credit of its own merit.

The ancient education system is composed of several schools like logic (Tarka), grammer (Vyakaranam), analysis of sacred scriptures (Mimmamsa), etc. and all the schools aimed at the subject of God (philosophy) only. The student, after realizing the existence of God with the help of all the schools of education (Shaastras), comes out as a citizen fearing for crime and corruption. Therefore, the existence of God is primary basis and the control of corruption and crime is the secondary consequence. Hence, it is wrong, as some people say, that the concept of God by itself is not true, but, should be respected and maintained for the sake of control of crime and corruption. In such a way, the crime and corruption can never be controlled because one knows that the basic concept is only created story for control in crime and corruption.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:00:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does this spiritual education include sati, child marriage, killing women so that you can remarry and obtain more dowry, and torturing your wife in order to extract money from her family?
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:02:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:00:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Does this spiritual education include sati, child marriage, killing women so that you can remarry and obtain more dowry, and torturing your wife in order to extract money from her family?

Don't forget the justification of slavery. I love me some justification of slavery
My legend begins in the 12th century
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:06:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you have any data that suggests that "spiritual education" reduces crime.

If you look at the data, the most irreligious societies like Scandanavia, Western Europe, Japan, etc... rank highest in quality of life indexes and lowest in crime. The most violent and repressive societies (such as the Islamic world) also happen to be the most religious.

It's rational for governments to adopt secular models of education since these corralate to reduced crime rates.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:40:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

The Fool: Do you have any examples of a generality of men from the passed saying this. "It was considered good to repress women" in any team like fasion amoungs men. Throught the history.
For example when did this begin to happen.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:48:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:40:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

The Fool: Do you have any examples of a generality of men from the passed saying this. "It was considered good to repress women" in any team like fasion amoungs men. Throught the history.
For example when did this begin to happen.

I don't have anything from the times at which it happened, but it has often been justified on religious grounds (we can look to religious texts for proof) and Aristotle condemned societies in which women were given power in Book 2 his Politics.
wierdman
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:20:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no solution to modern day corruption. Even reverting back to ancient time is hardly enough to rid the world of corruptions..... only way to eliminate corruption is MIND CONTROL!!!! MUHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH :D
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:06:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Right, because theocratic and spiritually enlightened societies totally do not hang homosexuals, execute women for wearing nail polish, and repress their citizens to the point of which their only chance to escape their miserable living conditions is a revolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:09:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think we should hand all power over to the DDO Elite.

That would solve EVERYTHING!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:01:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:20:04 PM, wierdman wrote:
There is no solution to modern day corruption. Even reverting back to ancient time is hardly enough to rid the world of corruptions..... only way to eliminate corruption is MIND CONTROL!!!! MUHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH :D

You forget killing off the human race.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There can never be mass enlightenment through any piece of scripture because the faction would extract different meanings from every extract.

Take Geeta for example. "Work, don't worry about the results" can be thought of in many ways. Would this stop a person from accepting bribes? Someone with a fallacious understanding of the shloka can take it as a go ahead. And will.

The bottomline is, there has to be an innate understanding, a social consciousness. Spirituality can help it, but more often than not, it does not. Because people try taking out literal meaning of every extract, and also, because there cannot be golden rules to live your life.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 1:23:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:00:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Does this spiritual education include sati, child marriage, killing women so that you can remarry and obtain more dowry, and torturing your wife in order to extract money from her family?

Reply: Swami meant the age of sages as ancient times. At that time, some sages did not even cut the paddy crop thinking life in that, which actually is right. They used to eat only fallen fruits etc. or dead plants.

Now, even living animals are killed or even slaughtered for food. With spiritual education, one understands and experiences God and His existence completely. When such scriptures like Manusmruti says that the greatest justice is not to kill any living being (Ahimsaa paramodharmah…). If he/she understands the scriptures, why will he/she do it?

First part is knowing the knowledge and second part is the practice of such knowledge. Practice only is vital.
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 2:41:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I doubt that going back to the ancient system and concentrate on spiritual education is the only solution for present day corruption. But yeah, it is important. Unfortunately, spirituality and religion increases less and less in the west. Materialism (also called Naturalism) and Atheism is what is in rise right now in the west. It's unfortunate but it's also a true fact we must face.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:11:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 1:23:46 AM, dattaswami wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:00:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Does this spiritual education include sati, child marriage, killing women so that you can remarry and obtain more dowry, and torturing your wife in order to extract money from her family?

Reply: Swami meant the age of sages as ancient times. At that time, some sages did not even cut the paddy crop thinking life in that, which actually is right. They used to eat only fallen fruits etc. or dead plants.

Do you have proof that there ever was an age in which those crimes did not occur?

I highly doubt that they only ate fallen fruits or dead plants. It's not possible to survive on only those things. Where do they obtain their supply of protein, for example?
Now, even living animals are killed or even slaughtered for food. With spiritual education, one understands and experiences God and His existence completely. When such scriptures like Manusmruti says that the greatest justice is not to kill any living being (Ahimsaa paramodharmah…). If he/she understands the scriptures, why will he/she do it?

Why should we believe the scriptures? Do you have any proof that they are true?
First part is knowing the knowledge and second part is the practice of such knowledge. Practice only is vital.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:03:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:11:46 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why should we believe the scriptures? Do you have any proof that they are true?

Reply: The analysis of the scriptures will make us understand the truth in it.

Authority in Spiritual Concepts: Whenever you make any decision, you have to follow three authorities: 1) Shruti i.e., Veda, Bible, Gita; 2) Yukti i.e., logic; 3) Anubhava i.e., experience.

Ex:1) To learn philosophy, the world gives the real picture. Books may contain faulty knowledge, but the world contains only the truth. To know whether the concept in the book is right or not you must refer to the world. Any concept in the scripture should be discussed with logic and finally approved only through its experience in the world. So the purest love can be seen in the world.

Suppose somebody loves and serves you without aspiring anything in return and his love is pure by all your tests, you imagine how much you are pleased! You will do anything for him. It applies to God also. If you serve Him without aspiring anything in return from Him and if your pure love passes all His severe tests, He will do anything for your sake. Love is proved only through service. Mere words and feelings are of no use. Service can be associated with words and feelings, like a plate of rice is associated with curry and pickles.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:05:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 9:03:02 AM, dattaswami wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:11:46 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why should we believe the scriptures? Do you have any proof that they are true?

Reply: The analysis of the scriptures will make us understand the truth in it.

Authority in Spiritual Concepts: Whenever you make any decision, you have to follow three authorities: 1) Shruti i.e., Veda, Bible, Gita; 2) Yukti i.e., logic; 3) Anubhava i.e., experience.

Ex:1) To learn philosophy, the world gives the real picture. Books may contain faulty knowledge, but the world contains only the truth. To know whether the concept in the book is right or not you must refer to the world. Any concept in the scripture should be discussed with logic and finally approved only through its experience in the world. So the purest love can be seen in the world.

Suppose somebody loves and serves you without aspiring anything in return and his love is pure by all your tests, you imagine how much you are pleased! You will do anything for him. It applies to God also. If you serve Him without aspiring anything in return from Him and if your pure love passes all His severe tests, He will do anything for your sake. Love is proved only through service. Mere words and feelings are of no use. Service can be associated with words and feelings, like a plate of rice is associated with curry and pickles.

So you really don't have any proof that the books are true.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Moral relativism ftw :)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:23:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Rawls adequately explains all of this. I suggest you read his works :)
Moral relativism ftw :)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:50:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 9:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Rawls adequately explains all of this. I suggest you read his works :)

You mean "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position?" If so, then these principles change over time, which was my initial point.

Moral relativism ftw :)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:53:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 9:50:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Rawls adequately explains all of this. I suggest you read his works :)

You mean "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position?" If so, then these principles change over time, which was my initial point.

Ask the slaves in Rome if they accepted slavery. In his conception, EVERYONE has a say in how society is formed. Morals don't change over time: they are just not enforced.
Moral relativism ftw :)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:57:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 9:53:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:50:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Rawls adequately explains all of this. I suggest you read his works :)

You mean "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position?" If so, then these principles change over time, which was my initial point.

Ask the slaves in Rome if they accepted slavery. In his conception, EVERYONE has a say in how society is formed. Morals don't change over time: they are just not enforced.

So he is arguing from an objective moral standpoint? Where does he get these objective morals from?

Furthermore, general consensus refers to the terms in a society. I'm sure the slaves wouldn't accept (but they had no say), however the owners and the other residents likely would have.

Moral relativism ftw :)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:03:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 9:57:27 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:53:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:50:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Rawls adequately explains all of this. I suggest you read his works :)

You mean "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position?" If so, then these principles change over time, which was my initial point.

Ask the slaves in Rome if they accepted slavery. In his conception, EVERYONE has a say in how society is formed. Morals don't change over time: they are just not enforced.

So he is arguing from an objective moral standpoint? Where does he get these objective morals from?

From ABSOLUTE consensus of ALL people in society.
Furthermore, general consensus refers to the terms in a society. I'm sure the slaves wouldn't accept (but they had no say), however the owners and the other residents likely would have.

The Veil of Ignorance is supposed to be in place BEFORE society is conceived. Everyone has a say in society's creation.

I really recommend that you read his book.
Moral relativism ftw :)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:06:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 10:03:43 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:57:27 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:53:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:50:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Rawls adequately explains all of this. I suggest you read his works :)

You mean "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position?" If so, then these principles change over time, which was my initial point.

Ask the slaves in Rome if they accepted slavery. In his conception, EVERYONE has a say in how society is formed. Morals don't change over time: they are just not enforced.

So he is arguing from an objective moral standpoint? Where does he get these objective morals from?

From ABSOLUTE consensus of ALL people in society.

Right, because all of the people in a society will have the exact same moral system...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:07:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 10:06:13 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 10:03:43 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:57:27 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:53:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:50:26 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:23:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:22:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:10:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:08:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:12:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The thing is, those problems weren't considered crimes in ancient times. It was considered good to repress women are kill people of other races, for example. That doesn't mean that they actually are not crimes.

How do you justify your morality as superseding the morality of ancient cultures?

My moral systems protect rights whereas what is "right" in their moral systems is based on superstitious nonsense.

How do you justify that it is a "right"? How do you justify that your "right" is more important than their superstitious nonsense? What gives you the right to impose your meta-ethical views on others?

Rawls adequately explains all of this. I suggest you read his works :)

You mean "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position?" If so, then these principles change over time, which was my initial point.

Ask the slaves in Rome if they accepted slavery. In his conception, EVERYONE has a say in how society is formed. Morals don't change over time: they are just not enforced.

So he is arguing from an objective moral standpoint? Where does he get these objective morals from?

From ABSOLUTE consensus of ALL people in society.

Right, because all of the people in a society will have the exact same moral system...

Well, yes, if we detach them from their identities and preconceptions.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:52:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 9:05:46 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
So you really don't have any proof that the books are true.

Reply: Ex: Concept of true love

Service is the proof of the real love. Service means sacrifice of work (physical service) and sacrifice of fruit of work (sacrifice of money). The mother serves her child by sacrifice of work like giving bath, dressing etc., for years together continuously. The father serves the child by sacrifice of fruit of his entire hard work. It is a clear practical point that the proof of the real love is only service.

If you serve your family, you love your family. If you serve the entire world, you love the creation. If you serve the God, you love the God and this is only devotion.

The same point is stressed in all the scriptures.

Matthew–6 : 19 to 22
‘Do not Lay up for yourselves, treasures on earth. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is there your heart will be also'.

Holy Islam speaks about the sacrifice of fruit of work (money) through the word ‘Jakaat'. This word says that every rich man is expected to practice the sacrifice within the limit of his wealth. Islam says that people are loving too much the money (Q'ran: AalFajr – 20).

Na karmana, Na prajaya, Dhanena tyagenaike Amritatvamaanasuh' i.e., you cannot attain God by selfish work or the children. You can attain God only by sacrificing your money for God's work. – The Veda

Gita says ‘Sarva karma Phala tyagam prahus tyagam vichakshanah' i.e., if you can give the fruit of the entire work to the Lord, then that is real sacrifice.

The first words of the first Upanishath (Easavaasyam) says, ‘Tena tyaktena Bhunjeedah' ‘Ma gradha ha kasyasvit Dhanam' i.e., this entire world is the money of the Lord. Take whatever you require from His wealth; don't take extra which is not permitted by the God. If you have taken, you are a thief. Return it back to the Lord.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 12:07:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 11:52:32 AM, dattaswami wrote:
At 6/19/2012 9:05:46 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
So you really don't have any proof that the books are true.

Reply: Ex: Concept of true love

Service is the proof of the real love. Service means sacrifice of work (physical service) and sacrifice of fruit of work (sacrifice of money). The mother serves her child by sacrifice of work like giving bath, dressing etc., for years together continuously. The father serves the child by sacrifice of fruit of his entire hard work. It is a clear practical point that the proof of the real love is only service.

If you serve your family, you love your family. If you serve the entire world, you love the creation. If you serve the God, you love the God and this is only devotion.

The same point is stressed in all the scriptures.

Matthew–6 : 19 to 22
‘Do not Lay up for yourselves, treasures on earth. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is there your heart will be also'.

Holy Islam speaks about the sacrifice of fruit of work (money) through the word ‘Jakaat'. This word says that every rich man is expected to practice the sacrifice within the limit of his wealth. Islam says that people are loving too much the money (Q'ran: AalFajr – 20).

Na karmana, Na prajaya, Dhanena tyagenaike Amritatvamaanasuh' i.e., you cannot attain God by selfish work or the children. You can attain God only by sacrificing your money for God's work. – The Veda

Gita says ‘Sarva karma Phala tyagam prahus tyagam vichakshanah' i.e., if you can give the fruit of the entire work to the Lord, then that is real sacrifice.

The first words of the first Upanishath (Easavaasyam) says, ‘Tena tyaktena Bhunjeedah' ‘Ma gradha ha kasyasvit Dhanam' i.e., this entire world is the money of the Lord. Take whatever you require from His wealth; don't take extra which is not permitted by the God. If you have taken, you are a thief. Return it back to the Lord.

This isn't proof that the scriptures are true. This is just presenting your worldview and claiming it is correct. Plenty of people, such as Rand, would disagree. Why is selfishness wrong? Why is service good? Do you have proof that God exists?