Neopaganism Is The Worst

[Martinus]

Religion is a communal activity. Mysticism can be individual but you need an organized system to make it a religion.

[Martinus]

  Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?

That's a circular argument. There are different systems of morality. Some are based on the utilitarian principles, some aren't. The act is not immoral or not objectively, it is only immoral or not within a specific system.

Similarly, an act cannot be illegal without a legal system. There are commonalities between systems which may suggest that some acts are "universally" illegal, but that's not logically the case.

[Razgovory]

  Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?

That's a circular argument. There are different systems of morality. Some are based on the utilitarian principles, some aren't. The act is not immoral or not objectively, it is only immoral or not within a specific system.

Similarly, an act cannot be illegal without a legal system. There are commonalities between systems which may suggest that some acts are "universally" illegal, but that's not logically the case.

I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality.  Or are you suggesting that on each moral problem you come across you flip through all moral systems and find the answer you like best?

[Martinus]

  Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?

That's a circular argument. There are different systems of morality. Some are based on the utilitarian principles, some aren't. The act is not immoral or not objectively, it is only immoral or not within a specific system.

Similarly, an act cannot be illegal without a legal system. There are commonalities between systems which may suggest that some acts are "universally" illegal, but that's not logically the case.

I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality.  Or are you suggesting that on each moral problem you come across you flip through all moral systems and find the answer you like best?

Everyone has a system of morality, it's just that not everyone's system is internally consistent. People usually borrow from different systems.

[Razgovory]

So, that's a yes.

[grumbler]

Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga.  Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.

I know you are trying very hard, but to those of us outside the flock, these sheep look pretty much identical.  From where I sit, this spitting on neopaganism by people who believe in other, equally-goofy-appearing concepts is nothing short of amusing.

Neopagans dancing naked around a fire is indistinguishable in silliness, to me, from Catholics in Sunday-best pretending to be cannibals.

[Razgovory]

Did you have something to add to this discussion?

[Neil]

Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga.  Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.

I know you are trying very hard, but to those of us outside the flock, these sheep look pretty much identical.  From where I sit, this spitting on neopaganism by people who believe in other, equally-goofy-appearing concepts is nothing short of amusing.

Neopagans dancing naked around a fire is indistinguishable in silliness, to me, from Catholics in Sunday-best pretending to be cannibals.

That's funny.  I can tell the difference.  Is it possible that you took a blow to the head and became retarded?

[grumbler]

Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits.

That's a pretty base definition of reasoning, wouldn't you say? I mean - yes; cost-benefit analysis is a type of reasoning, but I wouldn't say it's the only type by far. Actually I don't know of anyone who has even glanced at a philosophy textbook (even ones comprised solely of religious philosophers) who would suggest that cost-benefit analysis is the only thing meant when someone talks about "reasoning".

Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?

As I said, it's not just about benefit. Is it your notion that in order to avoid being a moral relativist I must adhere to a system of morality which is supposedly handed down from a higher power? If not, what system of morality would be acceptable in its place? And is it seriously your contention that once one adopts a moral system one must never encounter a situation which cannot be crammed into that system? That once a morality is chosen that morality becomes immutable and incapable of growth?

I can't imagine you'd be arguing those things. And yet here you are, appearing to do that. I'm hoping you'll be able to explain your position with greater clarity.

I think Raz may not be able to distinguish between intrinsic morality and relative morality.  That is predicted by our old friend Kolhberg, so don't sweat it if that proves to be the case.  Raz simply will not be able to understand you until he achieves a stage of moral reasoning at most one stage or so lower than your own.  It isn't a matter of smart, it is just a matter of cognitive development.  If Kohlberg is right.

[grumbler]

That's funny.  I can tell the difference.  Is it possible that you took a blow to the head and became retarded?

No blow to the head, so I don't have your ability. 

[Razgovory]

   Really, nobody asked for a drive by pissing Grumbler.  Why don't you run a long and go back under your bridge.

[Neil]

That's funny.  I can tell the difference.  Is it possible that you took a blow to the head and became retarded?

No blow to the head, so I don't have your ability. 

What other abilities do you lack?

[Eddie Teach]

  Really, nobody asked for a drive by pissing Grumbler. 

Who's driving? Because we know grumbler's not that limber at his age...

[garbon]

What sort of growth are we talking about here, then?  Most moral systems have some framework for dealing with new situations, but you really don't come across new moral systems very often in your daily life.  Yours sounds a lot like "Making it up as you go", in which the temptation to do what is easy or simply beneficial well quickly be rationalized as right.

How is that different from existing moral frameworks? They are ever changing (although clearly at a glacial pace) as well.

[garbon]

How odd.  Religion is a bit like law.  You don't personally interpret the law.  Well not if you intend to stay out of jail.  Why would the divine law change person to person?

People don't interpret religion?