Human arguments that I disagree with

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Human arguments that I disagree with

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

manored
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:30 am
There are some reasons or arguments people use very frequently to justify their actions that I disagree with, and I think it will be interesting to discuss about then. Feel free to add any if you have one.

*Justice: What is justice? Is it absolute? These two questions make me disbelieve the concept of justice. For example, if you take from the rich to give to the poor, are you being just or unjust? In one hand you are make then equal, but in the other you are taking away from one and giving to other, that is, treating then inequally.

Justice, just like ever other thing, is relative, so people shouldnt think that just because they think they are being just their argument is absolute, as frequently happens

*Rightfullness: Right is another relative thing, and I like to think people do not have any rights. The example I like the most is possession of land: Why must a person have exclusive rights upon a land merely due to being the first one to be there? I said it must not, otherwise if a man is the first on a island he can make the other one thousand people on the sea drown and starve to death, just because he wants all the fruit to itself. Off course, we create societies and accept its concepts of rightfullness so that we can live in peace and tranquility, but if the society changes in a way that treatens our existence, we are likely going to break its laws and return to the original "no one has rights" mindset.

*Innocence: Thats an argument I hear a lot around terrorism, but I dont believe in innocent people either. There is always something that a person could have done to help or prevent an event, and just the fact that it exists and lives will also affect other people who have even greater influence on these events in some way.

For example: People complain that terrorists kill innocent people, when what they want is to hurt the nation. But killing "innocent people" WILL hurt the nation. This means that they are not innocent, because their deaths do make a difference for their cause.

I know that these views are cold hearted, but I think we must first be real, and second, if there is a breathing room for it, kind.
 
alcaz0r
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:53 am
@manored,
Where did these come from? I agree with what is said about justice and rights.

The argument about innocence doesn't seem very convincing though. It is true that killing innocent people will hurt the nation they are a part of, and it may further the cause of the persons/organization doing the killing, if their only cause is to hurt some nation. It doesn't follow that those people aren't innocent though. In fact, that they are involved in such unfortunate business independent of any direct action on their part actually highlights their innocence rather than denies it.
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 04:42 pm
@alcaz0r,
alcaz0r;89849 wrote:
Where did these come from? I agree with what is said about justice and rights.
From me. I did make it seem like I was quoting then out of somewhere else though =)

alcaz0r;89849 wrote:

The argument about innocence doesn't seem very convincing though. It is true that killing innocent people will hurt the nation they are a part of, and it may further the cause of the persons/organization doing the killing, if their only cause is to hurt some nation. It doesn't follow that those people aren't innocent though. In fact, that they are involved in such unfortunate business independent of any direct action on their part actually highlights their innocence rather than denies it.
The innocence I mean is the innocence of those who didnt contribuite for the event, not of those who did not want the event to happen. If we disconsider justice, only the first is relevant.
 
xXKanpekiXx
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 10:39 pm
@manored,
I agree completely with you, manored, but I would like to add one thing:

Good/Evil: Why do we need such black and white categories? Why must they be deemed so very absolute when I feel these classifications rely heavily on one's viewpoint. Does the enemy in war ever consider themselves the bad guy? Isn't the "villain" always looing to benefit himself/herself? From a biological standpoint, this selfishness isn't a bad thing. I find this a bit of our world that serves to confuse us as we grow beyond the black and white and float around in the gray area.

It sounds extreme, but the words themselves are supposed to carry an extreme connotation.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 02:04 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
xXKanpekiXx;99391 wrote:
I agree completely with you, manored, but I would like to add one thing:

Good/Evil: Why do we need such black and white categories? Why must they be deemed so very absolute when I feel these classifications rely heavily on one's viewpoint. Does the enemy in war ever consider themselves the bad guy? Isn't the "villain" always looing to benefit himself/herself? From a biological standpoint, this selfishness isn't a bad thing. I find this a bit of our world that serves to confuse us as we grow beyond the black and white and float around in the gray area.

It sounds extreme, but the words themselves are supposed to carry an extreme connotation.
I agree with this, we merely need to know what is friend and what is foe, we dont need to add an infinity of labels to everthing by rating it "good" or "evil". I think the most unrealistic stories ever made are those where the villain admits his evilness, or admits the goodness of his foes. Nobody does that!
 
Poseidon
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 08:33 pm
@manored,
I disagree that human behaviour is the result of genetics.

Having studied psychosexuality in the realm of developmental psychology extensively, I find it appalling that anyone can consider behaviour to be determined wholly by invisible DNA molecules.

It has the ring of 'the devil made me do it' to it. It serves to try and convince people to be slaves to their subconscious desires and it completely ignores the way in which human behaviour generally improves in society.

Its fatalistic. And worse than this, it can become justification for genocide.

What gene could possibly have LESS survival value than the so-called 'homosexuality gene'?
Perhaps a gene for suicide?
A gene for celibacy?

How can 'science' have degraded to such an extent that it can even consider such possibilities. And when you look at the studies they are ridiculous.

Some guys even observed fruit flies allegedly doing homosexual things, and then concluded that it was genetic. They just watched fruit flies! Thats all they did.

If human behaviour such as intelligence was determined by genes, then books would not exist. We learn behaviours by observation, then choose.

Leave a child in the wild it becomes an animal. Bring up a pet in loving family and you get a lovely pet. How is it that 'scientifical' sounding over-complexities manage to pull the wool over the eyes so easily so that common sense observation (empirical) is just ignored?
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 6 Nov, 2009 12:56 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;101926 wrote:
I disagree that human behaviour is the result of genetics.

Having studied psychosexuality in the realm of developmental psychology extensively, I find it appalling that anyone can consider behaviour to be determined wholly by invisible DNA molecules.

It has the ring of 'the devil made me do it' to it. It serves to try and convince people to be slaves to their subconscious desires and it completely ignores the way in which human behaviour generally improves in society.

Its fatalistic. And worse than this, it can become justification for genocide.

What gene could possibly have LESS survival value than the so-called 'homosexuality gene'?
Perhaps a gene for suicide?
A gene for celibacy?

How can 'science' have degraded to such an extent that it can even consider such possibilities. And when you look at the studies they are ridiculous.

Some guys even observed fruit flies allegedly doing homosexual things, and then concluded that it was genetic. They just watched fruit flies! Thats all they did.

If human behaviour such as intelligence was determined by genes, then books would not exist. We learn behaviours by observation, then choose.

Leave a child in the wild it becomes an animal. Bring up a pet in loving family and you get a lovely pet. How is it that 'scientifical' sounding over-complexities manage to pull the wool over the eyes so easily so that common sense observation (empirical) is just ignored?
While I mostly agree, I dont see where anyone here said that human behavior is defined by genetics =)

I say I mostly agree because I dont think any aspect of human behavior is defined by genetics alone, but I do think genes may provide strong, perhaps inescapable tendencies towards a certain behavior. I remember watching in a program about homosexuality the case of a woman who, ever since childhood, always though she was supposed to be a boy and not a girl, that is, she always behaved as a man. I think cases like this are probally the result of a very strong genetic setup towards that behavior.

I also remember watching in another program that some scientists found a dna chain that repeats itself from one to eight times, and then, by making some research, they found out that people with more of those repetitions were in general more "adventurous" than people with less of then.
 
melonkali
 
Reply Fri 6 Nov, 2009 03:42 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;101926 wrote:
I disagree that human behaviour is the result of genetics.

Having studied psychosexuality in the realm of developmental psychology extensively, I find it appalling that anyone can consider behaviour to be determined wholly by invisible DNA molecules.

It has the ring of 'the devil made me do it' to it. It serves to try and convince people to be slaves to their subconscious desires and it completely ignores the way in which human behaviour generally improves in society.

Its fatalistic. And worse than this, it can become justification for genocide.

What gene could possibly have LESS survival value than the so-called 'homosexuality gene'?
Perhaps a gene for suicide?
A gene for celibacy?

How can 'science' have degraded to such an extent that it can even consider such possibilities. And when you look at the studies they are ridiculous.

Some guys even observed fruit flies allegedly doing homosexual things, and then concluded that it was genetic. They just watched fruit flies! Thats all they did.

If human behaviour such as intelligence was determined by genes, then books would not exist. We learn behaviours by observation, then choose.

Leave a child in the wild it becomes an animal. Bring up a pet in loving family and you get a lovely pet. How is it that 'scientifical' sounding over-complexities manage to pull the wool over the eyes so easily so that common sense observation (empirical) is just ignored?


It's been a few years since I studied psych, but didn't twins separated at birth studies (and to a lesser extent siblings separated at birth studies) show that DNA does have a stronger effect on personality than had previously been suspected?

rebecca
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Human arguments that I disagree with
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 12:06:21