Philosophy (Part 2)

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
There is no ABSOLUTE correct/right is what I meant, obviously many people believe their views are right. And actions I do are "right" relative to my beliefs...my point was there is no absolute right/wrong beliefs, but your actions can be right/wrong relative to your beliefs.

Very well. But what about the beliefs themselves? Can they be right or wrong relative to something? Your answer to this question seemed to be NO.

Edit: just some erratas.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger


She is, since she makes the choice. If she doesn't want to pay she should get an abortion. There wouldn't be any argument about this if abortion wasn't such a contentious issue and people accepted the legal view that there is no child present prior to X point in the pregnancy.

Let's take an analogy: I hit a woman accidentally in my car. She sustains a minor ankle injury and requires a 400$ visit to the doctor to put a plaster on her and take an xray.

But she's from an obscure religious sect that believes that modern medicine is wrong. She requires a trip back to her native Hamjakistan accompanied by her entire family, a month of preparation and sacrifices to the gods, and finally a trip to the local medicine man who binds her ankle in vines. Total cost: 200 000$. Why should I have to pay her 200 000$ medical expenses when the 400$ fix was only unacceptable due to her moral objections, but was completely legal and safe?

The choice that she should have to make is whether to support only her half of the financial obligations or not, not all of it. Both parents of each child have a financial obligation to that child. It's not about your duty to her. It's about your duty to your child. More often than not, when a women makes a decision like this it's the state who has to pick up at least some of the bill if the father can't. The state should only have to do this when the father can't do it. You got the thrill, so you pay the bill. Society should not have to pay your bills, and either should the mother.

[KrazyHorse]

The choice that she should have to make is whether to support only her half of the financial obligations or not, not all of it. Both parents of each child have a financial obligation to that child. It's not about your duty to her. It's about your duty to your child. More often than not, when a women makes a decision like this it's the state who has to pick up at least some of the bill if the father can't. The state should only have to do this when the father can't do it. You got the thrill, so you pay the bill. Society should not have to pay your bills, and either should the mother

The man should have to make the same choice; if he says he wants the baby but she doesn't, and she chooses to bear the child for him then she should be absolved of financial responsibility.

[The Vagabond]

On the matter of philosophy courses:
There is a saying that it doesn't matter what they teach, it matters how they teach. This saying is quite relevant to philosophy courses. It may seem too intuitive to you, or you may even disagree with what they teach. But what matters is that, ideally, you are presented with an examplar of a line of reasoning. It's this reasoning pattern and its spirit that should remain in your subconsciousness for good.

[Ben Kenobi]

People's views change, you know.

You think I was born a Christian?

Asher, I'm not looking for the gory details, but more of an answer to Jon Miller's question of whether your understanding of the world has improved as you get more experienced.

I think you believe this is true, but you don't want to give me the satisfaction of saying so.

That's fine too.

I'm going to bed, so take care Asher.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Very well. But about the beliefs themselves? Can they be right or wrong relative to something? Your answer to this question seemed to be NO.

since something == null, the answer is obviously no.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Asher, I'm not looking for the gory details, but more of an answer to Jon Miller's question of whether your understanding of the world has improved as you get more experienced.

I think you believe this is true, but you don't want to give me the satisfaction of saying so.

That's fine too.

Now you're starting to frustrate me.

Of course my understanding of the world has improved, I've said this many times, that doesn't mean my beliefs are "better" -- better implies there is a scale of right/wrong.

My beliefs are certainly not "better" now, they're just different. I'm really don't understand why this is difficult.

Seeing as there is no bars set for what is good and bad, there cannot be anything which is "more good" or "more bad" -- that's fundamental stuff.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
since something == null, the answer is obviously no.

It's not null. For example, your beliefs can be considered good or bad with regard to your prospective survival. So it's not null.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
On the matter of philosophy courses:
There is a saying that it doesn't matter what they teach, it matters how they teach. This saying is quite relevant to philosophy courses. It may seem too intuitive to you, or you may even disagree with what they teach. But what matters is that, ideally, you are presented with an examplar of a line of reasoning. It's this reasoning pattern and its spirit that should remain in your subconsciousness for good.

I don't need to be presented with linear reasoning in a philosophy class, I've been doing it for a LONG time before I ever took that class.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It's not null. For example, your beliefs can be considered good or bad with regard to your prospective survival. So it's not null.

Survival is null, unless you're immortal.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

The choice that she should have to make is whether to support only her half of the financial obligations or not, not all of it. Both parents of each child have a financial obligation to that child. It's not about your duty to her. It's about your duty to your child. More often than not, when a women makes a decision like this it's the state who has to pick up at least some of the bill if the father can't. The state should only have to do this when the father can't do it. You got the thrill, so you pay the bill. Society should not have to pay your bills, and either should the mother

The man should have to make the same choice; if he says he wants the baby but she doesn't, and she chooses to bear the child for him then she should be absolved of financial responsibility.

This is a situation that is not likely to happen very often. However I would have to say that if they made some agreement. That is, if she agreed to bear the child for him but be absolved of financial responsibility that would be fair. It's mutually agreed upon.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't need to be presented with linear reasoning in a philosophy class, I've been doing it for a LONG time before I ever took that class.

Very well. The classes were too easy for you. But this is not a problem with philosophy as such. It's just a problem with your classes.

Or perhaps you simply didn't pay attention to the line of reasoning as a whole. You just singled out certain points that were too obvious and intuitive to you and decided that the whole course was just a BS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The main point FOR Philosophy (and yes, it has turned into a 'philosophy is useless' thread, not matter what your protestations, Asher) is that every social construct has been created and defined through philosophy. Every political system and ethical belief are philosophy through and through.

[KrazyHorse]

Think it through, Duncan.

By not agreeing to have an abortion the woman is giving her consent to the opposite situation (where she pays and the man doesn't) once the man has made his intentions clear.

[DuncanK]

frogger,

Even still. Both parents should be responsible for the child. If the father couldn't support the child by himself like he promised the mother would still be responsible to do so.