Logical? Deism.

[wraith]

People who commit criminal offenses should generally be punished. What I am saying is that the threat of punishment is not necessary for all people.

You will still obey speed limits?

 

[CWL]

You will still obey speed limits?

Before I answer that question, perhaps you could answer this one.

Are speed limits "moral"?

Why or why not?

 

[wraith]

Before I answer that question, perhaps you could answer this one.

Are speed limits "moral"?

Why or why not?

I dont think so

Why do you ask?

 

[CWL]

I dont think so

Why do you ask?

Because if speed limits may not be considered as moral, your question is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

The question is whether the threat of punishment is necessary in order for people to act moral.

Why did feel it was important to bring up speed limits in relation to the discussion in question?

 

[wraith]

Because if speed limits may not be considered as moral, your question is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

The question is whether the threat of punishment is necessary in order for people to act moral.

Why did feel it was important to bring up speed limits in relation to the discussion in question?

Speeding is against the law is it not?
You said People who commit criminal offenses should generally be punished. What I am saying is that the threat of punishment is not necessary for all people.

Regardless of which, morality fits in aswell. Youre still working under rewards and punishment.

Why not steal from the church collection plate?

Your Fate and mine will ultimately be the same....

 

[CWL]

Speeding is against the law is it not?
You said People who commit criminal offenses should generally be punished. What I am saying is that the threat of punishment is not necessary for all people.

Regardless of which, morality fits in aswell. Youre still working under rewards and punishment.

I agree, more or less. If you can say that the satisfaction one receives when choosing to act according to one's empathy for others is a "reward", then I think we may even be in complete (!) agreement (at this particular stage of the puzzle). It is the necessity of the "punishment" part that I firmly believe does not apply to all people.

As to speed limits, to be fair, I think not exceeding speed limits is about morality. I personally do not do this for concern of the safety of myself and others (not because I am afraid of getting a ticket). In fact in Sweden, one can exceed speed limits with about 20 kilometers per hour without any fear of retribution. Notwithstanding I choose not to speed as I (naïve as it may be) truly believe I am making a contribution to safer roads that way.

Again, fear of punishment is not the main propellant.

Why not steal from the church collection plate?

Why? It is clearly immoral to do so.

Your Fate and mine will ultimately be the same....

Is that a good thing?

 

[Checkmite]

As an aside...

I was under the impression that traffic violations as petty as speeding weren't classified as "criminal offenses".

 

[CWL]

As an aside...

I was under the impression that traffic violations as petty as speeding weren't classified as "criminal offenses".

This is of course varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Sweden speeding (as I suspect probably applies in several US States as well) may be part of a criminal offense (e.g. "reckless driving") but speeding as such is a minor offense.

 

[Tricky]

As an aside...

I was under the impression that traffic violations as petty as speeding weren't classified as "criminal offenses".

I just sat on a jury in a speeding ticket case, and the judge assured us that all traffic offenses are criminal offenses. I didn't know it before then.

 

[CWL]

I just sat on a jury in a speeding ticket case, and the judge assured us that all traffic offenses are criminal offenses. I didn't know it before then.

Cool. Sounds like a major case. Were you secluded?

 

[Checkmite]

I just sat on a jury in a speeding ticket case, and the judge assured us that all traffic offenses are criminal offenses. I didn't know it before then.

A jury for a speeding ticket case? America certainly is a diverse country. Here, traffic violations are decided in "traffic court" by a judge, or by a magistrate at a Mayor's Court in some of the smaller townships.

 

[CWL]

A jury for a speeding ticket case? America certainly is a diverse country. Here, traffic violations are decided in "traffic court" by a judge, or by a magistrate at a Mayor's Court in some of the smaller townships.

In Sweden tickets for speeding can be issued by a police officer if the driver is caught "red-handed" and the driver chooses to sign an admission at the spot. If the driver does not, that the case is tried in a civil court. Whether or not the driver's license should be revoked is a different issue and is always subject to an administrative court.

 

[Franko]

Bump

So suddenly you are reversing your position 180 degrees and conceding that Rewards and punishment are necessary for conditioning moral behavior and honesty in individuals? I wonder where the conditioning went wrong on You CWL?

ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT NECESSARY TO MAKE MEN HONEST AND MORAL CWL? YES OR NO?

It's a very simple question ...

 

[Tricky]

A jury for a speeding ticket case? America certainly is a diverse country. Here, traffic violations are decided in "traffic court" by a judge, or by a magistrate at a Mayor's Court in some of the smaller townships.

It was "traffic court", but it is still a criminal offense. And yes, everybody charged with a criminal offense in Texas has a right to trial by jury. As it turns out, the kid was challenging it because he would lose his license with another ticket. (He did).

 

[CWL]

Bump

So suddenly you are reversing your position 180 degrees and conceding that Rewards and punishment are necessary for conditioning moral behavior and honesty in individuals? I wonder where the conditioning went wrong on You CWL?

ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT NECESSARY TO MAKE MEN HONEST AND MORAL CWL? YES OR NO?

It's a very simple question ...

You are truly amazing Franko.

From which position have I reversed 180 degrees? Please provide quotes or links to the posts in question.

I have contended that punishment is not always necessary (in fact for most people it is not). If you introduce rewards, that is something different. I have never disagreed with you as to your concept of "maximum perceived benefit". I have simply tried to point out that we often instinctively feel what is moral or not as evolution has installed certain moral beahviour in us.

Again, one could argue that the pleasure one gets from acting in accordance with such instinctive impulses (the pleasure one gets from doing "good deeds") is a "reward". Fine. I believe that this reward can indeed (in many instances) be reason alone for acting moral.

What I do not accept is that I (or any other sane person) need(s) to have the threat of Hell Fire (or the promise of Heaven) in order to act moral. That is where we disagree, not regarding the concept of "maximum perceived benefit" or a "reward" (of some sort) being necessary in order for someone to act moral.

The (simple) answer to your question is thus:

Punishment? Not always.

Rewards? Yes.

Post death rewards and punishment? No.

 

[CWL]

It was "traffic court", but it is still a criminal offense. And yes, everybody charged with a criminal offense in Texas has a right to trial by jury. As it turns out, the kid was challenging it because he would lose his license with another ticket. (He did).

Man, justice is rough in Texas.

 

[Franko]

You are truly amazing Franko.

Ohh why thank you CWL!

From which position have I reversed 180 degrees? Please provide quotes or links to the posts in question.

You had been steadfastly proclaiming that rewards and punishments were not necessary to make men honest and moral (for months), but now (finally) you have seen obvious the error of your ways and you are starting to waffle …

I have contended that punishment is not always necessary (in fact for most people it is not).

So what you are proposing is a rigid Religious Caste system whereby A-Theists and other “enlightened” citizens would have a different set of standards and laws which applied to them, and then there would be an “Undesirable” caste made up of non-a-theists who would be threatened with prison for wrong-doing?

I guess you aren’t really big on the idea of Capitalism either are you Commie?

So I have asked you at least 100 times before, are you claiming that if we abolished all prisons that the crime rate would remain virtually the same?

If you introduce rewards, that is something different.

What do you mean “Introduce”? I have been stating that REWARDS and Punishment are a key element of Determinism (I thought every high school kid knew that), and I have been stating it for over a year on this forum. Are you going to pretend like it is something I just mentioned now in order to try and save face CWL? You really are a P*ssy A-Theist.

I have never disagreed with you as to your concept of "maximum perceived benefit".

No actually you have. But at least you are finally conceding now. Is honesty sooo difficult for you A-Theist? I wonder why?

I have simply tried to point out that we often instinctively feel what is moral or not as evolution has installed certain moral beahviour in us.

“Evolution has installed” … why CWL you are sounding more and more like a Fatalist?!? Are you asserting that TLOP has used evolution to condition you??? How can TLOP “control” you CWL?

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Again, one could argue that the pleasure one gets from acting in accordance with such instinctive impulse (the pleasure one gets from doing "good deeds") is a "reward". Fine. I accept this.

Yeah do you remember ages ago when I told you about MPB, and you told me I was crazy? I wonder which of us is really crazy A-Theist?

What I do not accept is that I (or any other sane person) needs to have the threat of Hell fire haning over me in order to act moral.

If you do not believe there will be consequences for your actions, then you will behave EXACTLY as if you don’t believe there will be consequences for your actions. Your deceitfulness, outright lying, double standards, logical fallacies, religious fanaticism and trolling on this forum have been amply displayed for all to perceive A-theist.

That is where we disagree, not regarding the concept of "maximum perceived benefit" or a "reward" (of some sort) being necessary in order for someone to act moral.

Conscious entities only react to stimuli. All stimuli are either positive (a reward) or negative (a punishment)

The answer to your question is thus:

Punishment: Not always.

Reward: Yes.

Awwww … that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside ...

Tell me CWL what is the difference between withholding a reward, and punishment? If you can offer a reward to condition, then obviously you must be able to withhold the reward if the desired behavior is not performed … correct? So isn’t that a form of punishment?

You really need to learn the 2 plus 2’s of Determinism. I guess they don’t bother teaching you guys this stuff over in commie-land? I guess with all the religious indoctrination into the church of A-Theism they don’t actually have time to teach you whiney Europeans about real Science?

 

[CWL]

Ohh why thank you CWL!

I aim to please.

You had been steadfastly proclaiming that rewards and punishments were not necessary to make men honest and moral (for months), but now (finally) you have seen obvious the error of your ways and you are starting to waffle …

Again, please provide quotes and/or links to the posts where I have been proclaiming this.

Of course you can't. Because it just isn't so.

So what you are proposing is a rigid Religious Caste system whereby A-Theists and other “enlightened” citizens would have a different set of standards and laws which applied to them, and then there would be an “Undesirable” caste made up of non-a-theists who would be threatened with prison for wrong-doing?

No. All citizens must be equal under the law. The threat of punishment must naturally apply even to me (although I do not need it).

"Religious Caste system"? Which posts have you been reading (and what drugs were you on at the time)?

I guess you aren’t really big on the idea of Capitalism either are you Commie?

?!?

Again, from where do you get the impression that I am against capitalism? I am a commercial lawyer for Pete's sakes. I live of capitalism. Thus, as to the Commie comment, I can assure you I am not. I vote for a conservative party and I always have.

So I have asked you at least 100 times before, are you claiming that if we abolished all prisons that the crime rate would remain virtually the same?

No, because some people (as I have explainted to you at least 100 times before) need punishment as a deterrent.

If you want to do the Funky Strawman, why don't you try this on for size:

Are you claiming that the majority of prison inmates are atheists? If so, please provide the statistics to back your claim up.

What do you mean “Introduce”? I have been stating that REWARDS and Punishment are a key element of Determinism (I thought every high school kid knew that), and I have been stating it for over a year on this forum. Are you going to pretend like it is something I just mentioned now in order to try and save face CWL? You really are a P*ssy A-Theist.

Nope. This all started out by you claiming that any person who believes in eternal damnation would never commit a crime. You then went on to claim that the lack of such a belief automatically leads to immoral beahviour. My only contention is and has been that you are wrong in saying this.

No actually you have. But at least you are finally conceding now. Is honesty sooo difficult for you A-Theist? I wonder why?

When did I challenge your theory of "maximum perceived benefit"? Please provide quotes and/or links to any post where I have done so.

Of course you can't. Because it just isn't so.

“Evolution has installed” … why CWL you are sounding more and more like a Fatalist?!? Are you asserting that TLOP has used evolution to condition you??? How can TLOP “control” you CWL?

I thought you'd like the idea of "intrinsic morality". Of course I also claim that we are free to act upon such instinctive impulses or not to. Therefore I also believe it's fair that we suffer the consequences of our actions.

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make the conclusion any less mundane Franko. Yes, there is a certain nature of things which can be described as "laws" of physics. How else would things be?

I constitute part of this Universe. My ability to influence the Universe through input (to an extremely minute extent but nevertheless) is not "disobeying the laws of physics" - it is part of the laws of physics as is any other possible phenomenon.

Yeah do you remember ages ago when I told you about MPB, and you told me I was crazy? I wonder which of us is really crazy A-Theist?

No I don't because I have never said it. Please feel free to provide a quote and/or link to any specific post where I have.

Of course, you can't. Because it just isn't so.

If you do not believe there will be consequences for your actions, then you will behave EXACTLY as if you don’t believe there will be consequences for your actions. Your deceitfulness, outright lying, double standards, logical fallacies, religious fanaticism and trolling on this forum have been amply displayed for all to perceive A-theist.

My impression is that it has only been perceived by such geniouses as yourself and Jedi Knight. I still have the other posters deceived by my A-Theist powers. :evil laugh:

Seriously Frank, aren't you projecting a bit now again?

Conscious entities only react to stimuli. All stimuli are either positive (a reward) or negative (a punishment)

I agree. That is no proof for any ultimate consequences however, nor that the lack of belief in such consequences leads to immorality.

Awwww … that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...

If it does I am happy for you.

Tell me CWL what is the difference between withholding a reward, and punishment? If you can offer a reward to condition, then obviously you must be able to withhold the reward if the desired behavior is not performed … correct? So isn’t that a form of punishment?

Sure. Again I don't see any reason to disagree.

You are still missing my main point however: 'taint no proof of no ultimate consequences (or that the lack-o-belief in such consequences leads to immorality).

You really need to learn the 2 plus 2’s of Determinism. I guess they don’t bother teaching you guys this stuff over in commie-land? I guess with all the religious indoctrination into the church of A-Theism they don’t actually have time to teach you whiney Europeans about real Science? [/B]

Franko, I am afraid that your general ignorance is showing again. Today's Europe is anything but communistic. I reside in a part of Europe which has never been. Not to worry, when you become older and have advanced a few grades in School, get to study such subejcts as History and Social Studies.

As to real Science, tell me again how the speed of light is in reality quite arbitrary.

 

[Franko]

CWL,

I just want to further elaborate on what a couple of religious nitwits you and your pal Tricky are …

Let’s say that I am digging a hole in my back yard, and I find some gold in the process.

I found a reward! There is nothing immoral with that, correct?

Now you are claiming that punishment isn’t necessary to make men honest and moral.

So if there is no punishment associated with “stealing” money from a bank, how is me walking into a bank and “stealing” money any different then me finding money in my back yard? I mean … if there are no negative consequences associated with taking something that isn’t yours, then in what way is that action immoral?

 

[CWL]

CWL,

I just want to further elaborate on what a couple of religious nitwits you and your pal Tricky are …

Let’s say that I am digging a hole in my back yard, and I find some gold in the process.

I found a reward! There is nothing immoral with that, correct?

If we are talking about a natural gold source and you own the land then, I agree. Nothing immoral.

If you find a golden artifact you are most likely not the legal owner of the artifact (it may belong to someone else or to the state if it is of cultural value), in which case the moral thing would be to take the object to the police.

Now you are claiming that punishment isn’t necessary to make men honest and moral.

No, I don't know about my religious nitwit pal Tricky, but I am not claiming this. I am claiming that punishment is not necessary to make all men honest and moral.

I am sure you can spot the difference.

So if there is no punishment associated with “stealing” money from a bank, how is me walking into a bank and “stealing” money any different then me finding money in my back yard? I mean … if there are no negative consequences associated with taking something that isn’t yours, then in what way is that action immoral?

Simple. Because you benefit (unreasonably) at the expense of someone else (the rightful owner of the money) when stealing.

This isn't rocket science, you know.