Pakistan mob burns man to death for 'blasphemy'

[Michael]

Understanding the underlying objective truth about morality is absolutely fine. Morality can even be presently defined objectively as a psychological phenomena. The only thing you can't do is propose a scenario and ask whether or not it is objectively moral. To ask a question like that requires morality to objectively exist independent of subjective thought (which it does not). The only valid question you can ask about a proposed scenario is whether or not another person finds it moral or not, which is their subjective opinion.

Let me make sure I have you right. 'Blue' the color does not exist objectively. It can only be understood subjectively. Is this BLUE? If you can 'see' the blueness then you'd say yes. If not, you'd say no. The blueness is qualia. Actually, I'm not sure if that should be the blue is qualia felt as blueness?

Either way, the qualia blue is totally subjective. The subjective experience is dependent on objective neuroanatomy (ranging from photoreceptors through to the occipital lobe and onwards into that ocean of unknown we call consciousness).

Yet, because blue is initiated by a specific wavelength of light (say around 488nm) we talk of blue as if it, itself, were objectively real. As if blue was out there waiting to be discovered or 'sensed'. But, if I understand you correctly, blue is not 'real' (wavelengths are real) and so we should ultimately refer to wavelengths of light. And then understand that blue is the subjective experience of having one's photoreceptor stimulated by that wavelength and processes in the cortex.



Can we do the same for morals? Is there the equivalent of '488nm' for morality.... just waiting to be discovered?

 

[GeoffP]

This is why those countries want to censor the internet and block western companies from coming in and influencing the thoughts of their people. You cant wish for what you don't know exists. This behavior is bad by our standards.But in their eyes, they are protecting their interests and I am sure some of them even believe that their people are better off as they are. Because they TRULY believe in Allah.

That's not the sort of religious conservative behaviour people are objecting to.

 

[seagypsy]

That's not the sort of religious conservative behaviour people are objecting to.

Strange, I would think enforcing ignorance on people would be something people of western morality would object to. Westerners don't usually approve of censorship and secrets.

But that's another issue. My point is and will always be, that we cannot force our morality on others and assume that our morality is the only right one. What is right to us is wrong to others. That is the nature of morality. And human beings are responsible for their actions, up to and including choosing to practice a religion in a manner that they see fit.

 

[spidergoat]

Let me make sure I have you right. 'Blue' the color does not exist objectively. It can only be understood subjectively. Is this BLUE? If you can 'see' the blueness then you'd say yes. If not, you'd say no. The blueness is qualia. Actually, I'm not sure if that should be the blue is qualia felt as blueness?

Either way, the qualia blue is totally subjective. The subjective experience is dependent on objective neuroanatomy (ranging from photoreceptors through to the occipital lobe and onwards into that ocean of unknown we call consciousness).

Yet, because blue is initiated by a specific wavelength of light (say around 488nm) we talk of blue as if it, itself, were objectively real. As if blue was out there waiting to be discovered or 'sensed'. But, if I understand you correctly, blue is not 'real' (wavelengths are real) and so we should ultimately refer to wavelengths of light. And then understand that blue is the subjective experience of having one's photoreceptor stimulated by that wavelength and processes in the cortex.



Can we do the same for morals? Is there the equivalent of '488nm' for morality.... just waiting to be discovered?

It gets even more complicated. Blue is a cultural construct.

http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/0...s-names-and-it-messed-with-our-brains-part-i/

 

[GeoffP]

Strange, I would think enforcing ignorance on people would be something people of western morality would object to. Westerners don't usually approve of censorship and secrets.

But that's another issue. My point is and will always be, that we cannot force our morality on others and assume that our morality is the only right one. What is right to us is wrong to others. That is the nature of morality. And human beings are responsible for their actions, up to and including choosing to practice a religion in a manner that they see fit.

Oh, I'm sure Westerners would object to that. It's just not on the top of the list for complaints about the hegemony of reactionary religious expression.

As to your second point: uniform boundaries on morality exist. Relativistic morality ceases to be of consequence when human life is in the balance. Thus, human beings are indeed responsible for their actions, although perhaps not on a moral plane they all may recognize. I hope you're not carrying water for the murderers of the man in the OP?

 

[seagypsy]

I hope you're not carrying water for the murderers of the man in the OP?

Absolutely not. I am only saying that putting the blame on religion absolves the people who did it of blame. I blame the people who did it and those who stood by and allowed it. They may use their religion as an excuse for their actions but the bottom line is that they WANTED TO DO IT and so they found a way to excuse it. To follow a religion that htey believe allows such behavior only says about the people that they are prone to that type of behavior. If their interpretations of their faith went strongly against their true nature they would reject it and demand change, either in the interpretation of the faith or in the legal compulsion of the religion.

To blame Islam for the horrific acts of some who claim to follow it is like giving credit to an easter sunday christian for any good that missionaries out in the field do when they make great sacrifices to feed the starving. The Christian who does the bare minimum, going to church on sunday but not helping anyone but themselves EVER, is still as much a christian as anyone else by popular definition. But you can hardly say christianity inspires all christians to do good anymore than you can say that islam inspires all muslims to do bad. People will follow their nature no matter what their religions say. They just find a way to justify their acts within the religion or pick a different religion. Or in my case, say there is no god at all.

Religion merely reflects the nature of the people who adhere to it.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't believe you. There is no way without religion they wanted to burn a disabled man alive. I know it happens, but without religion (and superstition like accusations of witchcraft) it would be very rare.

 

[Michael]

So, this is the new format.
Interesting.....

It seems to me we need to determine if objective morals exist and if they exist what they are. We know morals exist, and even if they are only relative, then we should at least agree to a few of them before attempting to answer the question of whether it is OK to burn a man to death for 'blasphemy'.

I find it fascinating. Over in another thread, I've taken the position against government funded healthcare. My stance is it's immoral (due to the way it's funded). That's not really of importance. I mean, who cares? Discussion is mute. What's interesting is this notion (put forward by Asguard) that without the government people'd be killing one another in the streets. Haa! As if the only thing holding us back from eating one another another is the threat of government. You see it pop out with "You're a Troll" or "LIAR!" comments. "Kill the Tibetan she's trying to flee the farm ... errr country"! *bang bank*

Isn't that interesting? It's why this man was burned to death for 'blasphemy'. See, that's what I'm doing 'blaspheming'. I'm dissenting. People think "he's going to cheat". Or "he wants a free-ride". Etc.... Which is again, silly. But people think it. Religion is different from pure superstition - although it reinforces superstitious thinking. In these tribal areas the State is small and so people want a Big God. How can you know if people are "cheating"? You check to see if they're doing all the silly stuff you have to do to be a part of the group. In places with small god the State is Big. With no god, people want to believe "The Government" is looking after them. Which, is again, just silly.

So, the reason why this man was burned is because of the same reasons I'm called a Troll or Dull or a Liar! or an Idiot or a Conservative (atheist that supports gay marriage conservative... funny that one). People are people. While in Pakistan they cut your head off. Here we do it more civilized - we send an official State Clown with a Clown Badge, Clown Hat and Clown Blue Uniform you'd look completely stupid in if it weren't Official State Clown "Uniform" (just imagine showing up in work in your own superman outfit!) and we put other humans away in a cage. We're the Civilized ones :shrug:



I loved the link on Blue and Green color in Japan. And that we didn't have the color Orange until recently is quite fascinating! So, we wouldn't say BLUE is the underlying construct, but perhaps 'vision' itself is the construct? Maybe 'underlying construct' isn't the best way to put it. What's I'm saying is you have to have vision to make mental constructs and then on top of this we can build color and then on top of this we build words for color and on top of language we create word worlds.... but underlying it all is 'vision'.

Can we say 'vision' is objective? I mean, the act of 'seeing' itself?

 

[spidergoat]

Without God, all we have left to depend on are organizations of humans. We call that government. In it's American form, you have freedom to believe what you want and say what you want.

 

[GeoffP]

Absolutely not. I am only saying that putting the blame on religion absolves the people who did it of blame. I blame the people who did it and those who stood by and allowed it. They may use their religion as an excuse for their actions but the bottom line is that they WANTED TO DO IT and so they found a way to excuse it.

They might have been bad people at heart - we'll never know - but it was indeed religion, or their reading of it, that inspired them to burn a 'blasphemer' to death. Without the notion that there were such things as blasphemers, would anyone at all have been burned, however? I doubt it. The language and tradition exists in Islam to perform such an act. The language for similar behaviour exists in other religions, but it's been socially stamped out by the will of the majority or the will of vocal elements of the population.

To follow a religion that htey believe allows such behavior only says about the people that they are prone to that type of behavior. If their interpretations of their faith went strongly against their true nature they would reject it and demand change, either in the interpretation of the faith or in the legal compulsion of the religion.

Possible. There are indeed Islamic reformers. They have a hard job ahead of them - majority opinion rests with the kneejerk reactionary conservative Islamists moreso than them, if polls are to be believed.

To blame Islam for the horrific acts of some who claim to follow it is like giving credit to an easter sunday christian for any good that missionaries out in the field do when they make great sacrifices to feed the starving. The Christian who does the bare minimum, going to church on sunday but not helping anyone but themselves EVER, is still as much a christian as anyone else by popular definition. But you can hardly say christianity inspires all christians to do good anymore than you can say that islam inspires all muslims to do bad.

No, I'd never make such an argument. I would credit Christianity with its acts of charity, as one would do for Islamic acts of charity; some behaviours must reflect the teachings of those religions (liturgical or traditional), otherwise no philosophy can amount to very much other than a mental exercise. Islam does not inspire all Muslims to do bad, and neither does Christianity inspire all Christians to do good. But we fail, I think, as rational thinkers and humanitarians when we dissociate the successes and failures of any philosophy with the writings and traditions behind it. I don't know if that extends to the body of believers itself, and I wouldn't want to debate that.

People will follow their nature no matter what their religions say. They just find a way to justify their acts within the religion or pick a different religion. Or in my case, say there is no god at all.

Religion merely reflects the nature of the people who adhere to it.

Well then, here we disagree. Philosophies inspire reflection and decision. Are they not responsible for the ideas they promote and propound? If they opposed nothing, then they could proclaim nothing also.

 

[Michael]

Without God, all we have left to depend on are organizations of humans. We call that government. In it's American form, you have freedom to believe what you want and say what you want.

Government is one form of organization - but there's plenty of secular organizations. Take Harvard as an example. But even a business is an organization. The thing about government that's different from all the other's is we've endowed it with the legal authority to initiate force against the people in all the other organizations. IMO that means we should try and keep government relatively small. I suggested 5% GDP as a target. As it stands is massive. Just think of the Trillions we spend on endless wars that we could have spend on education and medicine. The pentagon is the largest consumer of energy in the USA. The biggest polluter. And then there's the "Patriot" Act etc... the Trillions the banks were given....
-
It's like we're soooo worried we might be attacked and taken over. Why? Because then they might force us to work by taxing our labor.... Ah, HELLO!?!? I'm pretty sure no other group of humans could get as much squeezed out of the American public compared with the US Government and the lobbies that have grown up around it. We'd probably be BETTER off if some nation took us over! Seriously....
-
-
Anyway, shouldn't we determine what is and is not moral actions AND THEN have the discussion?
What do you think?

 

[Michael]

They might have been bad people at heart - we'll never know - but it was indeed religion, or their reading of it, that inspired them to burn a 'blasphemer' to death. Without the notion that there were such things as blasphemers, would anyone at all have been burned, however? I doubt it.

But has anyone made the case that burning blasphemer's to death is immoral? If it's moral, then what's the problem? I mean, we're not going to spend pages talking about some guy who bent a grass leaf under his shoe on the way across the field.

So? Was it immoral? Why?

 

[GeoffP]

Golden rule. That's good enough for me. Besides the right of all people to life, barring fair circumstances for its termination.

 

[Bells]

But has anyone made the case that burning blasphemer's to death is immoral? If it's moral, then what's the problem? I mean, we're not going to spend pages talking about some guy who bent a grass leaf under his shoe on the way across the field.

So? Was it immoral? Why?

Why?

Because they set him on fire and murdered him..

 

[quadraphonics]

But has anyone made the case that burning blasphemer's to death is immoral? If it's moral, then what's the problem? I mean, we're not going to spend pages talking about some guy who bent a grass leaf under his shoe on the way across the field.

So? Was it immoral? Why?

Good grief dude, you really think we need to argue everything from first principles?

I don't. And it looks to me like the demand to do so here is specious and a derail.

 

[Michael]

Golden rule. That's good enough for me. Besides the right of all people to life, barring fair circumstances for its termination.

The Golden Rule is pretty good, I haven't looked into how it's been studied Ethically, but that could be interesting. It seems one flaw may be that it's subjective. Some people like to box for example. Others may think boxing is vulgar. There's some extremely passive and extremely aggressive people in the world. I used to know a cage-fighter who really only felt 'good' kicking the crap out of someone.... and didn't mind taking a few punches to get there.

Why?

Because they set him on fire and murdered him..

That's two different things. Plus, as you're referring to actions, it seems you'd have to go through all possible actions and decide individually which are moral and which are not moral.

Is punching someone moral?
Is shaking someone's hand moral?
Is walking around with your hair showing moral?
Is eating shark soup immoral?

It'd be better to find an underlying principle, if one exists, and apply it to all actions.

Good grief dude, you really think we need to argue everything from first principles?

That's sort of the idea for this thread.

This IS the Ethics subform, one would think we could have a discussion about Ethics. Ethics is the study of morality, so, I suppose we'd have to "study" morality in a thread in this subform. I mean I actually want to *gasp* learn what Ethics has to say on this topic

Sure, it's a total waste of time in the other subforms, but surely its possible in the Ethics subform?!?! Just look around you. It's obvious if you turn on the News or listen to people in conversation than everyone is doing as Bells suggests and talking about the actions and missing the underlying principle. Hence we go round and round and never get anywhere. Particularly in multicultureal societies where some people think murdering your own daughter for having sex is "moral and just" and other think that is "immoral and unjust". We just can't go around and around like that. We have to think about first principles.

 

[seagypsy]

Well then, here we disagree. Philosophies inspire reflection and decision. Are they not responsible for the ideas they promote and propound? If they opposed nothing, then they could proclaim nothing also.

Are philosophies something that occur in nature? are the divine? did they fall from space? Did they spontaneously generate outside the hands of humans? No to all of the above. They are constructs of the human mind. They are ideas born in the human brain. Ideas we come up with and consciously choose to agree or disagree with. HUMANS are responsible for the existence and following of philosophies.

 

[seagypsy]

But has anyone made the case that burning blasphemer's to death is immoral? If it's moral, then what's the problem? I mean, we're not going to spend pages talking about some guy who bent a grass leaf under his shoe on the way across the field.

So? Was it immoral? Why?

To some, I would dare say most on this forum, it would be considered immoral. But to those who burned him, it was moral, even if it DID violate Qur'anic instructions.

 

[GeoffP]

Are philosophies something that occur in nature? are the divine? did they fall from space? Did they spontaneously generate outside the hands of humans? No to all of the above. They are constructs of the human mind. They are ideas born in the human brain. Ideas we come up with and consciously choose to agree or disagree with. HUMANS are responsible for the existence and following of philosophies.

Well, if you'd rather say the proponents of those philosophies, sure. I suppose one cannot 'blame' it in the conventional sense, but it's clear that theocracy - especially kneejerk radical theocracy - is badly, horribly flawed. It's a bad idea.

 

[Ripley]

To some, I would dare say most on this forum, it would be considered immoral. But to those who burned him, it was moral, even if it DID violate Qur'anic instructions.

Sorry—I must read up on this thread; just caught the tail-end. Are you saying that morality born ought of fear is healthy and upright? Really?