HOME | DD
omniskriba — One Question
Published: 2010-09-02 09:12:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 1522; Favourites: 9; Downloads: 18
Redirect to original
Description
Discuss.Related content
Comments: 16
man only values himself
the love for other beings, man, animal, nature, is prejudice
but you're asking for proof
and i ask you, what value?
The value amongst his family? The value amongst one peers? The value amongst man? The value amongst nature? 'mongst the universe? The Multiverse? All that is? All we can think of?
The only one that know are that when we are dead, but so we will never know.
(perhaps your right choice of question intended was: that man has a value. Because a man has no value without a woman.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
di ko masyadong maintindihan...
paki-tone down sakin please...>_<'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pag moralidad at etika ang pinagtatalunan, may isang tanong na pagnasagot, sagot mo na lahat ng iba pang bagay. Ang tanong na iyon ay "ano ba ang katunayan mo na may halaga ang buhay ng tao?" Kung mayroon kang sagot dito, ang sagot na iyon ang batayan mo sa lahat ng ibang katanungan tungkol sa moralidad at pakikipagkapwa tao. Katunayan at hindi opnion ang tawag dito kaya malamang, galing sa iisang pinanggalingan ang mga ito at sa pinanggalingan na ito magmumula ang halaga ng tao kung mayroon man.
Ayan ha. tagalog na yan.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ayun...naintindihan ko na...
salamat sa pag-translate ah...
pero pano pag hindi tumugma ang sagot ko sa katunayan ng kahalagahan ng buhay ng tao sa issues ng moralidad at pakikipagkapwa?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
E di kailangan mo baguhin ang pamamaraan mo sa pikikipagkapwa dahil sa katunayan na iyon nakasalalay kung tumutugma ba o hindi sa pawang katotohanan ang mga ginagawa mo. Pero, kung sa iyong palagay ay mukhang mas umaayon sa katotohanan ang pakikipagkapwa mo, maaari din na ang pinaniniwalaan mong katunayan ng halaga ng tao ay mali at nararapat na hanapin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, I'm sorry about ignoring this as a submission. I just flaked out there. It's a little unorthodox in form, but if you re-submit it to #Socratic-Club , I'll make sure it's accepted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is NO PROOF. Which is exactly why we should be as morally-aligned as we can be.
Simply put, the reason we have morals is because they give our world order, allowing us to gain and keep possessions, forge relationships based on trust, and generally keep us from blowing ourselves up.
Who cares whether your morals have value in the universal scheme of things? As long as you are doing things without causing harm to others, then that is perfectly fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hahaha thats a great question... i think man finds value in others when they actually hold nothing back living their life without the nasty fear of denial. thats what i think vaguely
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If a man has not value, then why the need for morality? This is a simple thought, for a complex mind. Morality is not based on value, such as it is. Morality is based on judgement of right and wrong, which is based on truth, which is based on God. God says that man has value, and of all the creatures able to make that judgment, it would be Him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interestingly, that was actually the point I wished to bring across (although in an underhanded manner). Personally, I believe that absolute values can only be accorded from an absolute vantage point and that only absolute values can have rational bearing when it comes to discourse. This extends, of course, to morality which can only be a subject of discourse and defense if there are absolute values concerning it. Otherwise, it is a moot topic and no one has any right to argue against acts concerning pain and misery.
However, I find it more infinitely more interesting posed as a question. It is in the dim recesses of uncertainty that one is set to choose between seeing either darkness or light.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In one sense, I agree, however, another interesting question could be posed. Are there really any absolutes? I believe that there are, and obviously, so do you. In certain situations, I absolutely believe that there is the black, and the white on the matter, and that there is no grey. However, in other situations, there is certainly some grey areas, which then incites us to have firm knowledge of our beliefs and "vantage points" on these subjects so that we can accurately navigate them.
What is, and what is not a "moot" topic based solely on whether or not morality is indeed subject to absolutes would be difficult to etch in stone, as it were...only for the reason that what is an absolute changes from one person's standpoint to another. In one sense, it would be great if we all could see things in exactly the same light...but on the other hand, that would make life a little boring.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The way you frame that assumes that morality is exclusive to humanity. Swap out "man" for "life."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, yeah. That does make sense. I'm not sure whether an edit is warranted as I'm rather fond of the wording myself (and I didn't think to save the .psd file so I actually wouldn't be able to unless I redo the whole bit) but I suppose that's a good, logical expansion of the idea. No, I don't think that morality is strictly a matter of human terms but I do maintain that if we do have an absolute value to human life (which would be part of all life in that case), then we can start talking about morality and get somewhere with the discussion.
Then again, if the proof behind human value has any special properties that gives it distinction from other forms of life then that might lead to discussion that is more specific to us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Were All Going To Be Replaced By Machines, Buddy!, Cockroaches, Penguins And Machines Will Be The Only Survivors!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, but the question lies: which one will be able to enjoy our internet memes once we're gone?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0