Would the world be better off without religion?

Well- I think I did make the case. I didn't fancy 10,000 words so I left the details to the reader's imagination assuming he has a working knowledge of human nature.

Anyway- how do you define "efficiency"? Efficient for what? The Chinese government don't spend their time changing fuses you know.

0 Replies

I would define it (in this context) if it could be shown that efficacy/efficiency would decline if CP was abaonnded in China that being a major inference of your prior post.

A noticeable price increase or supply slump of value added Chinese product would be a fair indicator.

Without such evidence you can just as easily argue that the increasing individual freedoms in China are in fair measure what has led to the industrial efficacy/efficiency we see today, and as such CP is not the impetus for China's industrial efficacy/efficiency but in fact an echo of an earlier more repressive time.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote-

Quote:

A noticeable price increase or supply slump of value added Chinese product would be a fair indicator.

That would need to be a gradually managed process and when it arrives the 1,000 million Chinese will all be living in American standards and the sea will be half way up Mt Everest. Being efficient at doing that over,say, a period of time not specified due to other complicating factors, might be what they are aiming at. Not being efficient at changing a light bulb. Most people will hardly notice it.

A price increase is automatically a supply slump.

British industry would be decimated at $4 to the £ which it was 50 years ago. It was $5 before the war.

The BBC said the organ sale was big business. Overheads are very low and there is a big demand.

Have you seen the protests when they knock a large long standing neighbourhood down to make a new business park and leave the residents to shift for themselves. Pitiful. Our governments daren't try anything remotely like it.

Isn't the effect quite sufficient to show the cause. And it's only one of many causes which I presume the Chinese government apply to get an efficient effect. Why would they do something inefficient?

0 Replies

In answer to your last question "Why would they do something inefficient?":

China's socialized (presumably at least outwardly so), centralized (no doubt here) command-economy (no doubt here), was/is by default inefficient and was/is done in the interests of a specific political expedience under the guise of Communism.

As to the balance of my reply, I have to get back to "wok" or be branded by the iron of the "command-economy matron" but if I have the time later this evening I'll address/redress further.

0 Replies

Yes I know Chum. It takes a long while to throw it off. If you're nailed on it endurance is all I can recommend.

0 Replies

I'm back (the iron fisted economic force is asleep).

I do have the expectation that China will continue to head toward a higher level of material wealth and accompanying freedoms and this I suggest is much more a driving force than CP.

As to the organ sale business yup I've heard about it and it brings to mind two things:

1) Asia may take the lead in biotechnology (one of the few areas the US is at present a real world leader).

2) The harvesting and sale of body parts may become the norm to some degree as we go forward and moral perceptions shift. However I would point out that this harvesting and sale is only an intermediary consideration. The much more important biotechnology of growing body parts genetically identical to your own is where we are actually headed.

Yes I have seen (not fist hand) the "protests when they knock a large long standing neighborhood down to make a new business park and leave the residents to shift for themselves". It's part of the command economy scheme, and we can at least hope this will diminish as material wealth and freedoms (hopefully) increase.

You say "isn't the effect quite sufficient to show the cause". The effect being high efficiency/efficacy and the cause being CP. I would have to answer no because you need something between cause and effect to enable congruency and in the case you suggest with so many variables I am not convinced CP contributes to high efficiency/efficacy on balance.

When you say a "price increase is automatically a supply slump" consider these two contrary examples:

1) If inflation is running at 5% than an expected price increase of 5% would not in fact be an increase in cost.

2) When perceived value outweighs underlying costs regardless of the supply demand equation.

In essence the "laws" of supply / demand are not as simple as they might first appear.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The member "real life" is singing and dancing the song and dance about morality with which he has consistently polluted these fora for years now. That someone recognizes the subjective nature of moral judgments doesn't make that person, or anyone else, a "moral relativist" (a truly meaningless term, except for the very particular circumstance of those who condemn in others behavior they excuse in themselves--Christians are a good example of people with that attitude, especially when it comes to Muslims).

I recognize that morality is subjective. That doesn't mean that my preferences, my definitions of "good" and "bad," vary with circumstance. They remain the same, i just have sufficient intellectual honesty to acknowledge that all such judgments are subjective.

Hi,

Sorry if something I had said rubs you the wrong way.

My only point was that the position

Quote:

all[/u] moral positions/judgements are valid , except for an absolutist position

is inherently contradictory.

And the position

Quote:

not all[/u] moral positions/judgements are valid

implictly recognizes the existence of an absolute standard of morality.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't worry about it. Cool

0 Replies

No, the shoe does not fit me, but that is hardly the point when you are attempting to forward a logical position which is not in fact logical.

In Post [url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2576576#2576576]#2576576[/url], 'real life' wrote:

Moral relativism is itself inconsistent , because it allows that all conceptions of morality are equally valid --- EXCEPT for the absolutist view. THAT is totally invalid, doncha know! (The post # above is a link to the post being quoted.)

Now, this may be true that in your universe, because you have introduced the term "moral relativism," but have not defined it--therefore we can't be sure. However, if the position being held is that all "moral" judgments are subjective, then yes, they are all equivalent (which might possible mean the same as "valid"), in that they are subjective. But they cannot possibly be both absolute and subjective--absolutes partake of a universal and eternal objectivity which is at the least implicit, if not explicitly stated by reference to someone's imaginary friend.

Your remark came at the end of a series of exchanges with Eorl, which derived from his remark to the effect:

Quote:

OK, so you and your country disagree with that. It's simply proof that such things are subjective.

As Eorl specified that moral judgments (at least in the case of capital punishment) are subjective, and proceeded from there to point out that what makes things pragmatically "right" or "wrong" derives from the preponderance of opinion, then it is possible (but not axiomatic) that any moral judgment can be valid, but never absolute.

Of course, it is logical to state that if not all moral judgments were valid, there of necessity be an absolute standard. I have not made such a claim, however, and if Eorl made such a claim, i missed that.

0 Replies

As far as I know, Renaissance artists Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael were all commissioned, ( not coerced), to create religious artworks.

I'd be interested to know whether there were any comparable atheistic masterpieces produced during this time?

0 Replies

It is obviously subjective to imagine oneself to be being objective because objectivity is based on empirical evidence and one only has one self to peer-review that.

It might even be said to solipsistic.

0 Replies

she, and I hope it is not necessary that she be obeyed, wrote-

Quote:

I'd be interested to know whether there were any comparable atheistic masterpieces produced during this time?

There's the sawn in half cow pickled in formaldehyde, the unmade bed and "Scream!" but none in those days. They had methods of dealing with that stuff in those days. We are more sophisticated.

I prefer Rubens myself. Especially the gump with the discretionary hand.

What does "this time" mean?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It is obviously subjective to imagine oneself to be being objective because objectivity is based on empirical evidence and one only has one self to peer-review that.

It might even be said to solipsistic.

So tell yourself you still have all your money and send it to me posthaste.........what have you got to lose.

0 Replies

I haven't got any. It all belongs to the Government which is as it should be because it created it by its wise and fruitful policies. There's a gift tax to prove the point.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

There are no moral facts, only moral judgements.

So are all moral judgements equally valid? Just a matter of opinion?

For instance, are all of the following positions equally moral?

---It is morally permissible, even imperative , to fly planes into buildings to kill those deemed to be immoral.

---Cannibalism is morally acceptable since one animal may always eat another.

---Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

---We owe future generations nothing. Not a clean environment, nor a better society. Only what is done for the self today is important.

---Only a master race of supremely intelligent and physically strong individuals should be allowed to continue to control the destiny of the planet.

---Society should be ruled by a monarch who holds the power of life and death over his subjects.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
There are no moral facts, only moral judgements.

So are all moral judgements equally valid? Just a matter of opinion?

For instance, are all of the following positions equally moral?

---It is morally permissible, even imperative , to fly planes into buildings to kill those deemed to be immoral.

---Cannibalism is morally acceptable since one animal may always eat another.

---Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

---We owe future generations nothing. Not a clean environment, nor a better society. Only what is done for the self today is important.

---Only a master race of supremely intelligent and physically strong individuals should be allowed to continue to control the destiny of the planet.

---Society should be ruled by a monarch who holds the power of life and death over his subjects.

You seem to think or at least your post suggests that Judgement is arbitrary.

I'll ask you one. (I know you lack the confidence to answer) What is the difference between a missle hitting a school in the Asia Minor and a plane hitting a tower in North America. If you can justify why the US can bomb other countries, then you have all you need to understand why terrorists will kill civilians.

Here is a hint: It doesn't require rational thougt to kill people. You can't defend one and condem the other. On top of that, if you see a difference, you've just made a "moral judgement."

Enjoy.

0 Replies

Quote:

What is the difference between a missle hitting a school in the Asia Minor and a plane hitting a tower in North America.

The U.S. military operates as a legitimate expression of a sovereign national government whose policies conform to international agreements constraining how uniformed military formations must operate. The U.S. missile that strikes a schoolhouse was aimed at a specific military target with the intention of killing or destroying enemy assets therein. Enemy personnel assets are individuals and groups engaged in waging war against the United States, or its allies ... not civilians, not children. Enemy logistical assets are military munitions, fuel, C4+I installations, etc. The target is NEVER innocent civilians , much less children. The United States spends millions to develop and utilize weapons that are reliable, accurate, and whose effects can be limited, as much as possible, to the designated target alone. Do innocent civilians and children die from U.S. munitions? Absolutely. Wars, unfortunately result in generalized death and destruction no matter that those results were unintended, or mistaken.

The Radical Islamic Movement (RIM) is a group of terrorist organizations operating without national legitimacy, and specifically reject any constraint on how they carry out operations planned by private citizens. The RIM's fundamental tactics are not specific to military assets. When they crash aircraft into a building it is without regard to who is inside. The attack on the World Trade Towers was conducted for terror alone. No active U.S. military assets were associated with the twin towers, yet the RIM specifically targeted them more than once. They make no effort to limit their attacks to "enemy combatants", but specifically target non-combatants generally. Using suicide bombers in a public market to indiscriminately murder the civilians they claim to be representing is a repugnant idea quite foreign to the values and operational doctrines of civilized nations. Against all "Rules of War" the RIM use children to carry out attacks, and deliberately place their own assets in ways that virtually guarantee civilian casualties. The RIM are kidnapping and murdering the Iraqi people for attempting to improve conditions for their nation.

Now if you don't see the difference between those two approaches, I'm sorry for your lack of discrimination.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Now if you don't see the difference between those two approaches, I'm sorry for your lack of discrimination.

So morally, the act of a sovern nation accidentally killing innocents is different than a group (representing no nation) intentionally killing civilians. Dispite the fact that the end result is someone dies, the two are different?

Bingo!

Asherman, I actually agree with you to a large degree, my point is to point out to Mr. RL, that the moral facts do not exist. That there is certainly no consensus on the morality of a killing; other circumstances affect it greatly.

The moral gravity is not uniform.

Having said that, I choose a very contrversial topic to prove just that: We can't justify killing as right, but we can also justify other's killing as wrong.

RL, would have to fold. As is always the case.

0 Replies

As JL said, "there are no moral facts, just moral judgments".

As Buddhists we try to suspend discrimination and making judgements regarding the "rightness" and "wrongness" of things, because ultimately they are the same intangible illusion of multiplicity. On the other hand, Buddhism isn't a moral-free zone, we are constantly seeking those thoughts, words and actions that mitigate and limit the suffering of sentient beings. The effort to constrain "moral"/"ethical" judgment is in itself making a judgment, and, in many cases, a judgment that leads to greater suffering rather than its mitigation.

From this foundation, JL and I reason to diametrically opposing judgments on some "moral"/"ethical" questions. I, for instance, support the U.S. policies in fighting against the RIM's effort to make the world conform to their notions of Islam. JL, using essentially the process, takes a more pacifistic position. Ultimately, it makes no difference to Ultimate Reality, but then we have to live within the constraints of Preceptive Reality. That conditions (whether we will, or no) what positions we take on how best to mitigate the suffering inherent within Perceptual Reality.

0 Replies

So while you and JL stand on different side of a line on a partiular issue, you agree that neither side has more "rightness." you choose to support war efforts, he doesn't.

so it's fair to say that you make a judgement/decision/choice and are not driven by some moral absolute.

I don't want to put wors in your mouth. Correct me if I''m wrong.

0 Replies

Our "moral/ethical" judgments are based upon how much suffering will likely result from different courses of action. Ultimately suffering in the Perceptual World will continue to exist, and in Ultimate Reality it makes not a whit of difference ... because in Ultimate Reality there is no division. This is my view, but I'm pretty confident that JL would vet it.

0 Replies

Would the world be better off without religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know