Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

A matter of tolerance and violence:

blackkid
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 10:55:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do people kill people who do not agree with their worldview? That's the question; pose your theories.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:02:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 10:55:23 AM, blackkid wrote:
Why do people kill people who do not agree with their worldview? That's the question; pose your theories.

Because they're morons.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:02:27 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 10:55:23 AM, blackkid wrote:
Why do people kill people who do not agree with their worldview? That's the question; pose your theories.

Because they're morons.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 9:38:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 10:55:23 AM, blackkid wrote:
Why do people kill people who do not agree with their worldview? That's the question; pose your theories.

The more people who disagree with your worldview who are dead the more likely it is your worldview will come into existence.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:41:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 10:55:23 AM, blackkid wrote:
Why do people kill people who do not agree with their worldview? That's the question; pose your theories.

Who does that? I think it's just an excuse if it happens. People kill people who are threat, or for practical advantage. In war there's a lot of chat about opposing views but it's just propaganda.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 8:00:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tolerance is relative, and people subside their tolerance for "The greater good". For example, we are intolerant against murderers.

If someone sees something like his self-interest as the greater good, then that is commonly seen as a problem.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 10:34:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People justify their actions based upon the belief they have objective standards. As a result they can rationalize their actions regardless of the harm they cause others. The most dangerous beliefs are the one's where people rationalize they have a right to control other people.
james14
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 7:31:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, some PEOPLE kill others because they hate all those who hold different worldviews and/or consider them inferior, evil, or Tools of Satan.

What we generally see is GOVERNMENTS killing people for their worldview. This may be because:

A) their evil regime cannot function when people hold different religious beliefs.

B) their evil regime does not want the religious people converting others and being a general bad influence.

C) their evil regime wants to stay Protestant or Catholic or Traditional or Atheist, so to preserve that homogeneousness everyone else must DIE or LEAVE.

D) the evil monarch/dictator simply does not like other worldviews

Also, some religions encourage the deaths of non-believers. This can lead rational people to do evil, as Dawkins noted.
Maybe I'm a genius; maybe not.

||||?||||
||>|||||<|
|<||>||?|||
james14
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 7:36:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:34:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
People justify their actions based upon the belief they have objective standards. As a result they can rationalize their actions regardless of the harm they cause others.

Objective standards do exist. Even naturalistic atheists believe in objective standards (as I learned in another forum post, the one on naturalism and morals): the GOOD OF HUMANITY standard. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with killing other worldview people to start with.

Plenty of good comes about as a result of objective standards. That police officer who keeps your neighborhood safe? He has the objective standard that people should not be allowed to kill, burn, rape, steal, maul, bite, incinerate, run over, de-limb, decapitate, torture, kidnap, rob, abuse, cheat, club, or otherwise damage others or their property.

Without objective standards the world would be in a heap of trouble.
Maybe I'm a genius; maybe not.

||||?||||
||>|||||<|
|<||>||?|||
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:18:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 7:36:00 PM, james14 wrote:
At 9/14/2014 10:34:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
People justify their actions based upon the belief they have objective standards. As a result they can rationalize their actions regardless of the harm they cause others.

Objective standards do exist. Even naturalistic atheists believe in objective standards (as I learned in another forum post, the one on naturalism and morals): the GOOD OF HUMANITY standard. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with killing other worldview people to start with.

Plenty of good comes about as a result of objective standards. That police officer who keeps your neighborhood safe? He has the objective standard that people should not be allowed to kill, burn, rape, steal, maul, bite, incinerate, run over, de-limb, decapitate, torture, kidnap, rob, abuse, cheat, club, or otherwise damage others or their property.

Not exactly. A police office has no objective standard that people should not be allowed to kill others. First and foremost there are laws which allow one human to kill another without penalty if he is doing it in self defense.

One might say that is an objective rule in itself, however since all the scenarios and conditions which constitute self defense are not objectively defined there will often be subjective decision points to identify whether one acted in self defense or not.

If subjective decisions are needed to identify when a situation fits within an objective rule, can you honestly claim the rule is objective?

Without objective standards the world would be in a heap of trouble.

Nobody said that subjective rules can't be helpful maintaining order or crafted to maximize the most good for the most people.
james14
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:28:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not exactly. A police office has no objective standard that people should not be allowed to kill others. First and foremost there are laws which allow one human to kill another without penalty if he is doing it in self defense.

One might say that is an objective rule in itself, however since all the scenarios and conditions which constitute self defense are not objectively defined there will often be subjective decision points to identify whether one acted in self defense or not.

If subjective decisions are needed to identify when a situation fits within an objective rule, can you honestly claim the rule is objective?

Yeah I can. The objective rule, in this case, seems to be that one can defend oneself with lethal force if one's life is in immediate danger. (More or less. I don't know what it is exactly.) The interpretation of the rule, not the rule itself, is subjective: e.g., In this case, was the defendant's life in immediate danger?
Anyway, even if you claim my rule is subjective since others might phrase it differently or deny it altogether, the rule we can't deny is that I (generally speaking) have a right to life, as the Declaration of Independence states.

Without objective standards the world would be in a heap of trouble.

Nobody said that subjective rules can't be helpful maintaining order or crafted to maximize the most good for the most people.

You seem to be confusing subjective rules with subjective interpretations of rules.
Maybe I'm a genius; maybe not.

||||?||||
||>|||||<|
|<||>||?|||
XLAV
Posts: 13,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:33:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 10:55:23 AM, blackkid wrote:
Why do people kill people who do not agree with their worldview? That's the question; pose your theories.

Because they want to prove that there worldview is better than theirs and they want to impose their worldview to everyone else.

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertard Russel
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 1:03:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:28:01 AM, james14 wrote:
Not exactly. A police office has no objective standard that people should not be allowed to kill others. First and foremost there are laws which allow one human to kill another without penalty if he is doing it in self defense.

One might say that is an objective rule in itself, however since all the scenarios and conditions which constitute self defense are not objectively defined there will often be subjective decision points to identify whether one acted in self defense or not.

If subjective decisions are needed to identify when a situation fits within an objective rule, can you honestly claim the rule is objective?

Yeah I can. The objective rule, in this case, seems to be that one can defend oneself with lethal force if one's life is in immediate danger. (More or less. I don't know what it is exactly.) The interpretation of the rule, not the rule itself, is subjective: e.g., In this case, was the defendant's life in immediate danger?
Anyway, even if you claim my rule is subjective since others might phrase it differently or deny it altogether, the rule we can't deny is that I (generally speaking) have a right to life, as the Declaration of Independence states.

And what is your objective rule set that defines when "one's life is in immediate danger" Simple fact is that there is no objective set of rules that will fit every possible occurrence, which then means subjective points of view are required to impliment an objective rule.

I take it a step further and ask if subjective reasoning is required to see how a real life occurrence fits within an objective rule then I really don't have an objective rule for all practical purposes. The problem is one of the view point. An all omniscient being may have the full viewpoint of all possible occurrences and how it fits in to an objective rule, but we as humans don't have that ability, thus we have to take our best stab at it, which usually ends up involving cost/benfit or other subjective techniques to determine if something is good or bad or how it may fit to the rule.

The only time we can make something objective is when we can make a very narrow scope as to avoid subjective interpretations. Morality as a whole is impossible to make that narrow.


Without objective standards the world would be in a heap of trouble.

Nobody said that subjective rules can't be helpful maintaining order or crafted to maximize the most good for the most people.

You seem to be confusing subjective rules with subjective interpretations of rules.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 5:48:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:02:27 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 10:55:23 AM, blackkid wrote:
Why do people kill people who do not agree with their worldview? That's the question; pose your theories.

Because they're morons.

No, because they'r Muslims
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 8:52:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 7:36:00 PM, james14 wrote:
Even naturalistic atheists believe in objective standards

Even naturalistic atheists can be susceptible silliness.

Plenty of good comes about as a result of objective standards. That police officer who keeps your neighborhood safe? He has the objective standard that people should not be allowed to kill, burn, rape, steal, maul, bite, incinerate, run over, de-limb, decapitate, torture, kidnap, rob, abuse, cheat, club, or otherwise damage others or their property.

Without objective standards the world would be in a heap of trouble.

If you had the opportunity to fully explain that standard to an Rational/Intelligent Insectoid alien who had you fully under his control, and was intent on eating you... would you expect it to be convinced?

"Don't eat me it's Wrong!"

Or would you only expect it to be convinced if it's sufficiently similar to people.. For example if it were naturally empathetic.. as many people are.

If you couldn't plausibly convince such a being of it with Reason alone (not relying upon some kind of subject-based appeal, like to empathy), then it's not objective.