Moash, and the fans who hate him

[Frustration]

10 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

No since regardless of context X and Y are going to die

To save X you must kill Y, but without you Y would have died anyway and you now save X so why is that wrong?

Everyone is going to die anyway so why is murder wrong? I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand.

10 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

And Taravangian does not think what he is doing moral anyway and that means he knows what’s in store for him and he does it anyway, this to me is the most selfless thing to do even if I think he’s right to do what he did

I mean I can, see how you would arive at that conclusion, but I would look at that as being worse, you know it's wrong but keep doing it.

7 minutes ago, Honorless said:

This has come up in all the Jasnah atheism topics ever.

If god is good and good is god. That's... circular reasoning. Good, by itself, has to be concept independent of god otherwise it's not really a quality that can be applied to god, it would become just a synonym. Religious perspectives have also evolved over the course of human history, what is considered good has also changed. People have a consciousness about morality & ethics outside of their religious beliefs. Are you saying atheists are not good simply by not being religious? There have been religions which existed before yours. There are other religions in the world right now. To declare your own religion as the right one would be a bit presumptuous. There's plenty of moral questions which have not been answered by religion, what about them?

Why can't it be a synonym?

Why can't how good you are be defined by how similar you are to God?

 

And alternativly if morality isn't based on religion what is it based on?

Edited June 27, 2021 by Frustration

[Honorless]

Just now, Frustration said:

Why can't it be a synonym?

Why can't how good you are be defined by how similar you are to God?

 

And alternativly if morality isn't based on religion what is it based on?

What is god to you? The answer is going to be different for every person, even those of the same faith and denomination. What about those who don't believe in god?

There's lot of things in religious texts that can be called morally questionable. Asking someone to kill their own child is for some reason present in every religion, extinct and extant. That is definitely immoral. (I suspect that the segments are used to justify sending your sons off to war but I haven't read any papers on it yet).

Morality can be based on religious beliefs but also cultural, philosophical and scientific principles.

You can argue that for you religious morality falls into objective/universal morality but I'd argue that's subjective morality, because I don't share the same beliefs as you, but doesn't that still leave some fundamental notions of right and wrong? No matter how you try to define & classify morality some principles remain the same, where do they come from? The most logical argument is that they come from the sum of human experience or are hard-wired in our biology via evolution. Religious people can argue that they don't believe in evolution but creationism, I suppose. But again, different religions exist. You could argue that they all venerate the same god. But at that point we'd have moved on from provable.

Regardless, we've gone beyond the scope of this topic.

[Honorless]

24 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Everyone is going to die anyway so why is murder wrong? I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand.

Frustration wth

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Honorless said:

Frustration wth

Am I reading that question incorrectly?

[Honorless]

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

Am I reading that question incorrectly?

I hope that was a thought experiment?

[Frustration]

6 minutes ago, Honorless said:

I hope that was a thought experiment?

that was a responce intended to show my thoughts on the specific thought exsperiment provided.

this one specifically

Spoiler

40 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

No since regardless of context X and Y are going to die

To save X you must kill Y, but without you Y would have died anyway and you now save X so why is that wrong?

meaning that I think that the question provided, and the one I asked are the same, and that just because people are going to die does not make it right to kill them

Edited June 27, 2021 by Frustration

[Honorless]

6 minutes ago, Frustration said:

that was a responce intended to show my thoughts on the specific thought exsperiment provided.

this one specifically

  Reveal hidden contents

 

meaning that I think that the question provided, and the one I asked are the same, and that just because people are going to die does not make it right to kill them

You nearly gave me a heart attack

[Frustration]

Just now, Honorless said:

You nearly gave me a heart attack

I excpect I did.

Without context that seems really bad.

[Bejarden]

I stand by my statement 

If to save 3 people you need to kill one that is completely fine

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

Everyone is going to die anyway so why is murder wrong? I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Frustration]

So @Bejardin1250 says that if the end is good enough the means don't matter

While I say means and end must be good.

We both say religion is the basis of Morality, while @Honorless disagrees.

I got everything?

Edited June 27, 2021 by Frustration

[Bejarden]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

So @Bejardin1250 says that if the end is good enough the means don't matter

While I say means and end must be good.

We both say religion is the basis of Morality, while @Honorless disagrees.

I got everything?

Seems good

[+Oltux72]

11 hours ago, Honorless said:

Ideally, what I'd want Taravangian to do is give the maximum no. of people a fighting chance rather than get the highest chances of survival for whatever no. of people possible.

Well, isn't that an objection you would have to make against every leader who chooses to surrender?

11 hours ago, Honorless said:

That and include more people in the decision-making. Distribute some information or hints to other powers if possible. Maybe send others to plead with the Nightwatcher.

He feels very... "mother knows best" with a side dose of I choose who gets to live

He is.

But then do those who want to fight ask everybody else what they think about them putting everybody else in danger? In a very limited sense even Lirin had a point. Did Dalinar ask the Alethi whether they are comfortable with betting their fate on a single champion?

[Bejarden]

Quote

Ideally, what I'd want Taravangian to do is give the maximum no. of people a fighting chance rather than get the highest chances of survival for whatever no. of people possible.

He actually did do this: Without him conquering Jah Keved the Coalition would never have happens. Each country would have fought on their own and lost.

Taravangian have them a fighting chance whilst preserving those that he was Honor-bound to preserve: Kharbranth

Quote

That and include more people in the decision-making. Distribute some information or hints to other powers if possible. Maybe send others to plead with the Nightwatcher.

He feels very... "mother knows best" with a side dose of I choose who gets to live

We can assume that if Taravangian thought that would work he would have done it, he didn’t and we can infer from their that it wouldn’t have worked.

He did what was necessary to save all lives he could, that’s not choosing who lives and dies. That’s preserving as much as you can

[Frustration]

I have additional thoughts on Taravangian but RoW spoilers so... Yeah.

If anyone wants to know I can PM you.

[Jash]

17 hours ago, Frustration said:

And alternativly if morality isn't based on religion what is it based on?

Honorless already answered this, but…Culture. It’s based on culture, just like religious dogma is. Religion does not exist in a vacuum, it has changed over time despite how religious people view it. It is a representation of its cultural’s morals. I in fact, think religion depends on culture and not the other way around, however in more deeply religious society they can directly influence each other. Every culture, whether religious or not, has morals. Two of the most deeply non-violent countries, and with some of the lowest crime rates in the world are Japan and South Korea. So, Frustration, why are they seemingly more morally pure (by measurable rates) despite being both more than 50% non-religious? This is historical, too, by the way. East Asia views religion differently than the West. (A note : I don’t actually think SK and Japan are more morally pure, I used that to point out that morals are subjective and cultural, not because I think any culture is actually morally superior to any other, the same for religions by the way)

[Bejarden]

29 minutes ago, Jash said:

Honorless already answered this, but…Culture. It’s based on culture, just like religious dogma is. Religion does not exist in a vacuum, it has changed over time despite how religious people view it. It is a representation of its cultural’s morals. I in fact, think religion depends on culture and not the other way around, however in more deeply religious society they can directly influence each other. Every culture, whether religious or not, has morals. Two of the most deeply non-violent countries, and with some of the lowest crime rates in the world are Japan and South Korea. So, Frustration, why are they seemingly more morally pure (by measurable rates) despite being both more than 50% non-religious? This is historical, too, by the way. East Asia views religion differently than the West. (A note : I don’t actually think SK and Japan are more morally pure, I used that to point out that morals are subjective and cultural, not because I think any culture is actually morally superior to any other, the same for religions by the way)

Culture is always stemmed in Religion, in every culture you can always trace it back to that.

Japan has/had a religion in the past which has heavily influenced it today and they are inseparable

Amarica too also is stemmed in religion, with Judaio-Christian values and such.

And “Religion” has not changed really, there are still people who believed what their ancestors believed 3000 years ago, there have been branch offs and other sects. But it mostly travels in a straight line with each religions values staying mostly the same

I do not know if a single culture that has succeeded that is not or has not in the past, been stemmed in religion

[Honorless]

12 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Well, isn't that an objection you would have to make against every leader who chooses to surrender?

He is.

But then do those who want to fight ask everybody else what they think about them putting everybody else in danger? In a very limited sense even Lirin had a point. Did Dalinar ask the Alethi whether they are comfortable with betting their fate on a single champion?

You are pointing at stuff that happens in the real world as though I have power over them. My moral values aren't going to be a consideration for any irl military commanders, I'm afraid. If you're asking me about my stance on these things then well, I'm relatively anti-military. I think conscription is a violation of fundamental human rights. I think the same about a lot of stuff involved in military training. Yes, I'm aware of the many ways wars might become inevitable and how much doing these things become a necessity in those cases. Something becoming a necessity does not make it right.

Don't forget this topic isn't in the RoW boards mate. What Dalinar did does not go against my moral philosophy, Dalinar does consider these things, read that chapter again.

12 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

He actually did do this: Without him conquering Jah Keved the Coalition would never have happens. Each country would have fought on their own and lost.

Taravangian have them a fighting chance whilst preserving those that he was Honor-bound to preserve: Kharbranth

We can assume that if Taravangian thought that would work he would have done it, he didn’t and we can infer from their that it wouldn’t have worked.

He did what was necessary to save all lives he could, that’s not choosing who lives and dies. That’s preserving as much as you can

I'm not against his judgement in letting morals fall by the wayside to preserve the entire species, I understand his viewpoint. As you just said, he prioritized, I'm not against that. He did prioritize certain people above others, but that's a very human reaction, I'm not holding that against him, so you don't need to justify his saving of Kharbranth to me.

"We can assume that if Taravangian thought that would work he would have done it, he didn’t and we can infer from their that it wouldn’t have worked."

We do see things working out over the course of the story that he did not see working out in the Diagram but as far as he knew, he was working with complete information, so I'm not too mad about that.

Taravangian didn't even try to give other people any info. He had enough insight that he could've used as proof. He actively tried to topple Jah Keved, Alethela, Azir, the Coalition of monarchs. He saw the things that he predicted not working, somehow working, and he just still went on his merry way. He did not reconsider anything. He continued to work at other people's expense. And that says something about him.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Honorless

[Jash]

3 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Culture is always stemmed in Religion, in every culture you can always trace it back to that.

Japan has/had a religion in the past which has heavily influenced it today and they are inseparable

Amarica too also is stemmed in religion, with Judaio-Christian values and such.

And “Religion” has not changed really, there are still people who believed what their ancestors believed 3000 years ago, there have been branch offs and other sects. But it mostly travels in a straight line with each religions values staying mostly the same

I do not know if a single culture that has succeeded that is not or has not in the past, been stemmed in religion

1. No. Sorry, I am a history major. No one believes the things they believed 3000 years ago. Also, they don’t even believe what they believed 200 years ago. Religion is constantly evolving and changing. It is not stagnant. 

2. “Each religion staying mostly the same” - That is the most provably false statement I’ve read in awhile. Go take a basic history of religion class. No. False.

3. Again, yes there have been. East Asians do not have, and never have had dogmatic religious beliefs. In the past, it was common to pick and choose different aspects of different religions. Again, most East Asian countries are majority non-religious right now. And the reason for the non-violence is 1. Community based society stemming from Confucianism (not a religion). 2. Highly educated populace, stemming from hard work/competitive culture - Again, that is a legacy of Confucianism as well as I suppose a general idea that scholarship is good that goes back pretty far in East Asian culture. 3. I can’t speak for all of East Asia, but my experiences in Japan and Korea suggest that they simply hate interpersonal conflict. It’s a society built on avoiding it at all cost, which…crime would of course cause a lot of. “Don’t stir the pot” is something almost every Korean I’ve met seems to believe. Anyways this is an aspect of culture and not any religion. 

4. At best you could call this a chicken and egg situation. Which came first : moral thought or religion. I believe strongly it was moral thought and ethics, and not religion. To be quite honest, I think it is just religious dogma to believe otherwise. 

5. Explain why no one worships Norse or Greek gods anymore (i could do more, but explain why those religions are now accepted as fantasy by most humans today. 

[Frustration]

8 hours ago, Jash said:

Honorless already answered this, but…Culture. It’s based on culture, just like religious dogma is. Religion does not exist in a vacuum, it has changed over time despite how religious people view it. It is a representation of its cultural’s morals. I in fact, think religion depends on culture and not the other way around, however in more deeply religious society they can directly influence each other. Every culture, whether religious or not, has morals. Two of the most deeply non-violent countries, and with some of the lowest crime rates in the world are Japan and South Korea. So, Frustration, why are they seemingly more morally pure (by measurable rates) despite being both more than 50% non-religious? This is historical, too, by the way. East Asia views religion differently than the West. (A note : I don’t actually think SK and Japan are more morally pure, I used that to point out that morals are subjective and cultural, not because I think any culture is actually morally superior to any other, the same for religions by the way)

By that logic there is no such thing as morals, just some things we imagined. And the only basis for any moral judgement is that more people agree with you.

How do you live like this?

Legitamate question, I don't even think I could.

[Bejarden]

49 minutes ago, Frustration said:

By that logic there is no such thing as morals, just some things we imagined. And the only basis for any moral judgement is that more people agree with you.

How do you live like this?

Legitamate question, I don't even think I could.

The questionsI ask myself every time I see these arguments… not to belittle the argument I just legitimately don’t understand 

5 hours ago, Jash said:

Explain why no one worships Norse or Greek gods anymore

Just going to answer this pretty quick: These we’re never accepted. Religion is not homogeneous I would wager a lot of money that me and Frustration disagree on basically everything and I think he’s completely wrong and I assume he thinks the same with me. And just because everyone realized Greeks were wrong does not mean anything 

anyway this is a complete side tangent with no meaning and if you want @Jash we could continue in a PM but there’s really no reason to have the discussion here

[ScadrianTank]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

By that logic there is no such thing as morals, just some things we imagined. And the only basis for any moral judgement is that more people agree with you.

It's not like morality exists somewhere in a vacuum - humans only began exhibiting moral behavior when society(-ies) formed. If it is somehow beyond what humanity imagined, every species across the universe has to have the same morals as we, despite having nothing in common with us. 

[Bejarden]

6 minutes ago, ScadrianTank said:

It's not like morality exists somewhere in a vacuum - humans only began exhibiting moral behavior when society(-ies) formed.

Society formed very early on in human history I think. We have evidence for thousands of years old structures in places like the Furtile Crecent

We don’t know everything of what happened back then so we can’t know really anything concretely

7 minutes ago, ScadrianTank said:

If it is somehow beyond what humanity imagined, every species across the universe has to have the same morals as we, despite having nothing in common with us. 

Pretty much yes.

If aliens exist, and I’ve seen no evidence they do, and they have intelligence, their morality should be very similar to humans.

 

[Frustration]

5 hours ago, Jash said:

5. Explain why no one worships Norse or Greek gods anymore (i could do more, but explain why those religions are now accepted as fantasy by most humans today. 

Perhaps the fact that they died out would prove that they aren't true.

Where as other religions are still going strong.

Additionally you should note that their "gods" where imperfect, they made mistakes, they could die, they where for all intents and purposes, more powerful humans.

7 minutes ago, ScadrianTank said:

It's not like morality exists somewhere in a vacuum - humans only began exhibiting moral behavior when society(-ies) formed. 

So someone living in isolation can't be moral because morality only exists in a culture?

11 minutes ago, ScadrianTank said:

If it is somehow beyond what humanity imagined, every species across the universe has to have the same morals as we, despite having nothing in common with us. 

And why is that impossible?

[+Oltux72]

1 hour ago, ScadrianTank said:

It's not like morality exists somewhere in a vacuum - humans only began exhibiting moral behavior when society(-ies) formed. If it is somehow beyond what humanity imagined, every species across the universe has to have the same morals as we, despite having nothing in common with us. 

That is demonstrably wrong. In fact we have very good evidence that the basics of morality is biologic.

Morally enraged monkeys

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

Perhaps the fact that they died out would prove that they aren't true.

Where as other religions are still going strong.

Additionally you should note that their "gods" where imperfect, they made mistakes, they could die, they where for all intents and purposes, more powerful humans.

So I say this with complete respect to your beliefs and your right to believe them. I am just responding to your reasoning. Religion on whole across the globe is seeing a decline in numbers. Atheism is climbing, or people are just apathetic regarding religion in general. Regardless if you believe this is true or not, for the purpose of your reasoning, let us act as if it is. So:

if this is in fact taking place, where atheism is becoming or on its way to becoming the dominant view regarding religion, does this then mean your religious beliefs are becoming false? Because it sounds like you are positing the numeric value of people believing something validates its veracity. So if the numbers of your religion decrease, while athiesm or another religion increase, does that make the god of your religion null and void?

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

So someone living in isolation can't be moral because morality only exists in a culture?

I think the point is if someone existed outside the knowledge of a religion that requires that god to be the source of morals, and requires subservience to that god in order to attain salvation, then by your logic, that person could be born, live, and die not knowing any better and be deemed evil and amoral all because of the location of their birth. This can be verified as incorrect due to existence of isolated cultures from modern society exhibiting morals. Further societal groups of animals, such as crows and apes have exhibited care and morals, unconnected to sapience and religion. 

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

And why is that impossible?

Because a main tenet of some religions is that man was made in the image of god, and is supremely unique. If another alien race exists, and is sapient and holds beliefs different than us, that disproves that tenet.