Also in the news

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Benguin said:

For me it's important to have a foundation for morality in order to have a subjective opinion on what moral codes should make up a society. If we have no foundation then we can't make claims like murder is always wrong or slavery is always wrong, as wrong is a made up term to describe subjective feelings. Murder always being wrong would imply everyone should know it to be wrong hence objectivity. 

 

I am happy to conceed a creator is not needed for subjective morality and if there is no such thing as objective morality than, for this argument at least, I conceed. If however murder or racism is always wrong, hence objectively immoral, then there is no justification for that without God. 

 

Of course you can say that murder or racism is not useful for society or survival but to say it is objectively wrong (evil) is to steal from a theistic worldview.

 

That is the value, objective morality is what is written on the hearts of humanity and no matter how much we suppress this with sin, we are all aware, we are all culpable and we will all have to answer for it. Jesus surplants sin with salvation and then sanctification. We are intended to be pure and holy(objectively morally perfect) but we have free will to choose. 

For the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase something I perhaps said in my earlier post: there is no difference in my view in terms of results or value between following an objective moral code given by a deity and a subjective one arrived at through human consensus (the consensus is the important part, I should have made that clear).

 

There is no need to explain such moral codes by usage of a cosmic entity when consensus is IMO an equally plausible basis for it. Especially as, if that objective morality does turn out to the the truth, all we have is our own subjective interpretations of it anyway as fallible human beings (look how often schisms have happened for proof of that).

 

If you believe in the judgement of an entity for moral or immoral acts that's of course totally fine, but personally I tend to put more stock in the judgement of my fellow human beings in this life - as imperfect as it may be.

Edited 16 June 2020 by leicsmac

[RowlattsFox]

33 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

They'll be families who genuinely could use the help that this can provide, whilst they'll be others who spend £60 on the latest iPhone or Sky bundle instead of feeding their kids properly, so I'm torn on the issue. In the grand scheme of things it won't cost a lot (in terms of Government budgets), but once it's done they'll be calls for it to happen every summer holiday.

 

Food vouchers are definitely the way to go, rather than money btw, that ensures they'll have to be spent on food.

I do a bit work with 'troubled families', I don't like the term but that's what they are referred as within our council, and also with drug and alcohol services and unfortunately there are too many parents, particularly within our area, who are not fit to look after children and some of the neglect I've been made aware of is heartbreaking. Not all of course, but far too many. Something that annoys me more than anything else is parents who have more children when they can't afford what they have already.

 

No-one wants children to go hungry, and the most vulnerable need help whether that is through free school meals or other forms of support. Questions do need to be asked why they're in that situation though. In my experiences some are happy to accept freebies etc but fail to engage in services there to support them whether that be employment, debt support, drug and alcohol support or just general parenting support.

 

Major problem for me is lack of support for working families, those that probably don't qualify for free school meals and other help towards bills. Work as many hours as they can and get no help, sometimes people are discouraged to find work because of this.

 

Fair play to Rashford for making a stand though, and sensible of the government to overturn the decision.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53060620

 

This posturing always happens around this time of year.

[StanSP]

Fantastic news 

 

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

What exactly has she said wrong here though?

 

Techniy not wrong, but it's like saying all lives matter in response to a BLM post. Pretty crass and insensitive to the cause.

 

The point Rashford is trying to make is think of people less fortunate, that is clear, and to pick it apart on a point of pedantry is needless.

 

What he is really saying is: 

 

While you have a shower think of those that can't because of financial reasons.

 

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

How so if it is true?

As far as I have been aware, water cannot be cut off. How can anyone feel empathy for a fictional scenario.

If you really need help empathising then water can be cut off in other countries for lack of payment, so think of those in other countries who have had their water cut off during lockdown. He didn't specify this country if we want to be pedantic.

Edited 16 June 2020 by Captain...

[Captain...]

Also:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2007/sep/29/moneysupplement3

 

Water companies are legally prohibited from cutting off customers who are behind with their bills - but Guardian Money can reveal there is evidence of a growing pattern of firms trying to get around the ban.

Water companies are permitted to disconnect the supply in certain circumstances - say, if the property is unoccupied. And Citizens Advice says that, increasingly, firms chasing bills are threatening disconnection on the grounds that the house has become empty when they know - or should know - it is occupied.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53059227

 

Given knowledge of both history and the present situation...why would any person of colour choose this way to go out, to say nothing of it happening twice in close succession?

 

That being said, if it does turn out foul play is involved in either or both of these, that sets a pretty terrible throwback as a precedent for current times.

[Benguin]

41 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

For the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase something I perhaps said in my earlier post: there is no difference in my view in terms of results or value between following an objective moral code given by a deity and a subjective one arrived at through human consensus (the consensus is the important part, I should have made that clear).

 

There is no need to explain such moral codes by usage of a cosmic entity when consensus is IMO an equally plausible basis for it. Especially as, if that objective morality does turn out to the the truth, all we have is our own subjective interpretations of it anyway as fallible human beings (look how often schisms have happened for proof of that).

 

If you believe in the judgement of an entity for moral or immoral acts that's of course totally fine, but personally I tend to put more stock in the judgement of my fellow human beings in this life - as imperfect as it may be.

Consensus doesn't make something objective. Objectivity means the same. Irregardless of opinion or emotion. In your worldview we are nothing more than atoms in motion, there isn't room in that worldview for a framework of moral codes that exists outwith the scope of individuals but applies to everyone the same. 

 

If your argument is that population consensus determines morality, then your original point (that slavery for example was wrong even when it was legal) falls down. You can say you feel it was wrong but atoms in motion don't care about what other atoms in motion think.

 

Of course you were right on your original point, slavery has alway been morally reprehensible but as a Christian I am always intrigued when people steal from a theistic worldview to make a point. 

 

You also mentioned whether something turns out to be truth. By what mechanism can you evaluate that? Surely only your own understanding? How do you know your understanding is sound? 

 

In terms of judgment, what means do you come to a conclusion? The population consensus? How do you know we're not living in a time where we are doing something we think is fine but a future generation will look back on us as abhorrent oppressors in the same way, we llok back on the deep south states a hundred years ago? 

[urban.spaceman]

47 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53060620

 

This posturing always happens around this time of year.

Almost as predictable as Neymar being injured or suspended on his sister's birthday. 

[iniesta]

I find it crazy that people in this country can genuinely criticise the benefits system in this country. A family of 4, parents not in work, receive roughly £1000 a month as a personal allowance + housing costs + significantly reduced ctax.

 

Is it really any wonder a lot of people dont bother working? 

[Dahnsouff]

18 minutes ago, iniesta said:

I find it crazy that people in this country can genuinely criticise the benefits system in this country. A family of 4, parents not in work, receive roughly £1000 a month as a personal allowance + housing costs + significantly reduced ctax.

 

Is it really any wonder a lot of people dont bother working? 

Interesting topic, one I was initially not going to respond to for fear of being branded a hard line Tory bigot. (I am not)

This resonates particularly as I have relatives who seem not only content to draw benefits for no other reason than they cannot be arsed to work. They are perfectly healthy, and decent enough skills and qualifications that obtaining a job should not be impossible. (They have not worked for 10+ years). 

He also spends an inordinate amount of time complaining about the government and why it will not provide him with more money. (Along with moaning about schools having the temerity to ask for a small donation for school trips)

Social provision is for those that are not able to help themselves, not for work shy sh!t kickers.

</rant> 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Consensus doesn't make something objective. Objectivity means the same. Irregardless of opinion or emotion. In your worldview we are nothing more than atoms in motion, there isn't room in that worldview for a framework of moral codes that exists outwith the scope of individuals but applies to everyone the same. 

 

If your argument is that population consensus determines morality, then your original point (that slavery for example was wrong even when it was legal) falls down. You can say you feel it was wrong but atoms in motion don't care about what other atoms in motion think.

 

Of course you were right on your original point, slavery has alway been morally reprehensible but as a Christian I am always intrigued when people steal from a theistic worldview to make a point. 

 

You also mentioned whether something turns out to be truth. By what mechanism can you evaluate that? Surely only your own understanding? How do you know your understanding is sound? 

 

In terms of judgment, what means do you come to a conclusion? The population consensus? How do you know we're not living in a time where we are doing something we think is fine but a future generation will look back on us as abhorrent oppressors in the same way, we llok back on the deep south states a hundred years ago? 

Consensus doesn't make something objective - absolutely right, but nor does it need to.

 

Personally, I think it's highly likely that a majority consensus of people, if they had known the full extent of slavery and its consequences carried out by the elite few in their name, would have been utterly against the idea - but unfortunately we'll never know if that was the case or not so we'll never be sure, all we have is its legality on paper which wasn't subject to anywhere near absolute public scrutiny at the time (considering the time and the disparity in wealth, class and access to knowledge as a result). Simply, we can't say with absolute certainty that a consensus of people back then thought slavery was morally wrong but then we also cannot say the opposite with any certainty, either. All I have to go on is a hunch, but I'm sticking with it in lack of any harder evidence.

 

If I remember right certain parts of Abrahamic religious texts have something to say about the positive qualities of slavery? Of course, it does depend on interpretation of those texts yet again, which is one of the reasons that I'm not going along with the idea of objective morality -  even if we've been given an objective morality from a deity it's of no more use to us than other human inventions because it, like those inventions, will always be open to fallible human interpretation.

 

Incidentally, I utterly reject the rather obvious inference here that one has to belong to a particular religion (which one of over 4,000, exactly?) to have a moral compass actually worth anything - as if theistic concepts of morality are somehow more sound than others and it's impossible to draw the same moral conclusions from other sources, like simple evolutionary survival - and I totally stand by my idea that the ideas of invented human morality hold as much value as those who would be given by a creator. Though some of them may change, the human instinct to survive and to bond as a group to do so means some moral concepts, while in theory still subjective, are pretty clearly delineated. You are wrong about "atoms in motion" not caring about what other ones think, because when those atoms gather in a way that is called life, most often that life wants to continue and as such will care about those other groups of atoms because it is in their best interest to do so. Biochemistry, not something ephemeral, is the driver of that, IMO - Occam's Razor applies.

 

With the last few questions, the answer to all of them is similar - my own fallible human understanding is what I put stock in, as well of that of my fellow human beings. And that applies to every single human on the planet. It could well be that in a few hundred years mankind will look back at us as incredibly backward and primitive from a moral point of view, but even if we can say as a legacy that we "did our best" that is still their prerogative and them doing it will keep showing that humans, as a species, are progressing morally - as they should. And, if a deity in the image of the Abrahamic religions did exist, I think it's the height of human arrogance to think that we would know what such a being would even want or be able to comprehend its motives.

[Captain...]

29 minutes ago, iniesta said:

I find it crazy that people in this country can genuinely criticise the benefits system in this country. A family of 4, parents not in work, receive roughly £1000 a month as a personal allowance + housing costs + significantly reduced ctax.

 

Is it really any wonder a lot of people dont bother working? 

The criticism of the benefits system is normally around how difficult it is to get the benefits you are entitled to.

 

Basically it seems if you are a career benifiteer and know all the loopholes and regulations you can make a tidy life riding the benefit train forever. Whereas a lot of people who genuinely need help are unfairly punished/treated for not playing the game properly.

 

I think the welfare system in this country is good but it needs improving as too many families and children are slipping through the cracks, whilst others take advantage of the system.

 

 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

 

Techniy not wrong, but it's like saying all lives matter in response to a BLM post. Pretty crass and insensitive to the cause.

 

The point Rashford is trying to make is think of people less fortunate, that is clear, and to pick it apart on a point of pedantry is needless.

 

What he is really saying is: 

 

While you have a shower think of those that can't because of financial reasons.

 

If you really need help empathising then water can be cut off in other countries for lack of payment, so think of those in other countries who have had their water cut off during lockdown. He didn't specify this country if we want to be pedantic.

Is it not possible she didn’t she the very hidden message, like the rest of us non woke folk?

[iniesta]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The criticism of the benefits system is normally around how difficult it is to get the benefits you are entitled to.

 

Basically it seems if you are a career benifiteer and know all the loopholes and regulations you can make a tidy life riding the benefit train forever. Whereas a lot of people who genuinely need help are unfairly punished/treated for not playing the game properly.

 

I think the welfare system in this country is good but it needs improving as too many families and children are slipping through the cracks, whilst others take advantage of the system.

 

 

Out of interest - in what circumstances are people punished /treated unfairly? Genuinely curious. 

[WigstonWanderer]

58 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Consensus doesn't make something objective. Objectivity means the same. Irregardless of opinion or emotion. In your worldview we are nothing more than atoms in motion, there isn't room in that worldview for a framework of moral codes that exists outwith the scope of individuals but applies to everyone the same. 

 

If your argument is that population consensus determines morality, then your original point (that slavery for example was wrong even when it was legal) falls down. You can say you feel it was wrong but atoms in motion don't care about what other atoms in motion think.

 

Of course you were right on your original point, slavery has alway been morally reprehensible but as a Christian I am always intrigued when people steal from a theistic worldview to make a point. 

 

You also mentioned whether something turns out to be truth. By what mechanism can you evaluate that? Surely only your own understanding? How do you know your understanding is sound? 

 

In terms of judgment, what means do you come to a conclusion? The population consensus? How do you know we're not living in a time where we are doing something we think is fine but a future generation will look back on us as abhorrent oppressors in the same way, we llok back on the deep south states a hundred years ago? 

Haven’t followed this whole argument and I’m not a philosopher or religious, but I’d like to just make one comment (and no more). I think a mixture of empathy together with “what works” is in practice a good start and requires no deity.

 

Perhaps a Christian might say “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.

[simFox]

On 15/06/2020 at 12:48, peach0000 said:

Can I ask why you don’t support it? I am yet to see what I consider to be a valid reason for not. Yes there are valid criticisms of particular actions of individuals within the movement (vandalism/violence etc) and even some of the more extreme views of particular people claiming to represent the movement, but to completely say you don’t support a movement whose main aim is to stop racial prejudice and solve problems of racial inequality is questionable in my opinion. 

No I certainly do not support BLM.

 

I have been happily married to my wife for some years now and things are going great, no one has ever shouted at her in the street or called her names, we have a number of Nigerian friends and they have been very well supported by the council or hold well paid jobs from good universities. As far as i can tell, all civil rights are equal, all local support services and taxes are distributed and collected equally, there is no ghettoisation and schools, education and teaching shows no preference. So what do people want to change exactly?

 

BLM seem to be targeting white people and packaging it up as white privilege, which is in itself a thinly veiled attempt at racism. The only way white privilege is purported to exist is the unconscious bias of white people which plays out through their actions and mannerism towards minorities that don’t fit their ideal. That should be re-written as humans exhibit an unconscious bias. Every race colour and creed will gravitate towards people they feel most comfortable with, hence why we end up with black communities, China town, Asian communities, name as many as you like. We are collectively British, but we exist in communities and groups of our own preference, culture and comfort. The fact that there are more white people in the UK unconsciously giving preference, trust and deference towards white people is nothing unusual and nothing you can change. The same is here in Africa where I'm the minority (I work in Nigeria)

 

The fact people want to force some kind of change is utter nonsense. Because you can't change an unconscious bias in white people the same as you can't change it any other colour. Are you going to tell my wife that she must have some white friends? That we should go to white nightclubs of listen to white music? Or eat white food?

 

Let's face it, no-one is going to do anything differently, nothing will change in our lives or in the way we interact and deal with others. Be it a British black guy or a Somali immigrant, we'll take each as we find them but by and large will have little to do with any of them. Our social circles will remain largely white, our outlook, culture and preference will remain the same and why shouldn’t it. The only contribution from our virtue signalling protesters will be getting down on one knee in the local park, a few fist pumps and chanting followed by a flurry of banner waving. We need to stop this self righteous finger pointing. Laying blame at the feet of every white person who doesn't agree with BLM just gets people's backs up and does nothing but make our lives more difficult, creating racial tensions where they didn't exist, stirring up racial emotions and demonising a bunch of people who my wife was getting along quite fine with. She's obviously been following these events and she’s been getting Facebook feeds from girls on the mums and tots groups, putting up meme's that are anti Floyd, she laughed about it, but she's certainly more aware of racial tensions, where before they didn't exist.

We can acknowledge that bias exists in everyone of every race. This isn't exclusive to white people, but we should recognise that wherever the population is highest will exhibit the highest level of bias. The unconscious bias isn't a bad thing, it's just a natural inclination of every human on earth. Trying to change the way people think and identify is bordering on some severe next level brainwashing, which is the real danger we face.

None of this is helping much as far as I can see. BLM are fighting ghosts. But succeeding in causing more racial division and anarchy in the process.

It doesn't help me either, my wife loves the club, I didn't even know black clubs existed so as you can imagine, I'm very often the only white guy there and I don't dance black! I've always felt a bit "on show" before, but I've always liked similar venues and her music is similar in beat to mine (house) so I've enjoyed it anyway, but now I'm going with my "white privilege". Thanks a bunch BLM.

[iniesta]

16 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Interesting topic, one I was initially not going to respond to for fear of being branded a hard line Tory bigot. (I am not)

This resonates particularly as I have relatives who seem not only content to draw benefits for no other reason than they cannot be arsed to work. They are perfectly healthy, and decent enough skills and qualifications that obtaining a job should not be impossible. (They have not worked for 10+ years). 

He also spends an inordinate amount of time complaining about the government and why it will not provide him with more money. (Along with moaning about schools having the temerity to ask for a small donation for school trips)

Social provision is for those that are not able to help themselves, not for work shy sh!t kickers.

</rant> 

It isnt an easy topic to discuss with certain types. I dont begrudge poorer people in society for taking advantage of a couple of extra quid, i would probably do the samee. 

 

 

 

 

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Haven’t followed this whole argument and I’m not a philosopher or religious, but I’d like to just make one comment (and no more). I think a mixture of empathy together with “what works” is in practice a good start and requires no deity.

 

Perhaps a Christian might say “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.

How do we know It's working? What is the measurement if there is no objectivity? 

 

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Out of interest - in what circumstances are people punished /treated unfairly? Genuinely curious. 

One example is disability allowance and the ridiculous testing now required:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-disability-assessment-personal-independent-payment-a8191726.html

 

Another is the unfair sanctions imposed on jobseekers:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/24/benefit-sanctions-trivial-breaches-and-administrative-errors

 

 

There are many more ways in which benefits are being cut and reduced. The problem is there are people exploiting the system which calls for people to say it's to generous and costs too much and probably more people being let down by the system which leads to people calling for the system to be made easier and more generous. The fact both are true makes reform harder but the trend over the last few years has been to cut benefit payments at the expense of those that need it the most.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, simFox said:

No I certainly do not support BLM.

 

I have been happily married to my wife for some years now and things are going great, no one has ever shouted at her in the street or called her names, we have a number of Nigerian friends and they have been very well supported by the council or hold well paid jobs from good universities. As far as i can tell, all civil rights are equal, all local support services and taxes are distributed and collected equally, there is no ghettoisation and schools, education and teaching shows no preference. So what do people want to change exactly?

 

BLM seem to be targeting white people and packaging it up as white privilege, which is in itself a thinly veiled attempt at racism. The only way white privilege is purported to exist is the unconscious bias of white people which plays out through their actions and mannerism towards minorities that don’t fit their ideal. That should be re-written as humans exhibit an unconscious bias. Every race colour and creed will gravitate towards people they feel most comfortable with, hence why we end up with black communities, China town, Asian communities, name as many as you like. We are collectively British, but we exist in communities and groups of our own preference, culture and comfort. The fact that there are more white people in the UK unconsciously giving preference, trust and deference towards white people is nothing unusual and nothing you can change. The same is here in Africa where I'm the minority (I work in Nigeria)

 

The fact people want to force some kind of change is utter nonsense. Because you can't change an unconscious bias in white people the same as you can't change it any other colour. Are you going to tell my wife that she must have some white friends? That we should go to white nightclubs of listen to white music? Or eat white food?

 

Let's face it, no-one is going to do anything differently, nothing will change in our lives or in the way we interact and deal with others. Be it a British black guy or a Somali immigrant, we'll take each as we find them but by and large will have little to do with any of them. Our social circles will remain largely white, our outlook, culture and preference will remain the same and why shouldn’t it. The only contribution from our virtue signalling protesters will be getting down on one knee in the local park, a few fist pumps and chanting followed by a flurry of banner waving. We need to stop this self righteous finger pointing. Laying blame at the feet of every white person who doesn't agree with BLM just gets people's backs up and does nothing but make our lives more difficult, creating racial tensions where they didn't exist, stirring up racial emotions and demonising a bunch of people who my wife was getting along quite fine with. She's obviously been following these events and she’s been getting Facebook feeds from girls on the mums and tots groups, putting up meme's that are anti Floyd, she laughed about it, but she's certainly more aware of racial tensions, where before they didn't exist.

We can acknowledge that bias exists in everyone of every race. This isn't exclusive to white people, but we should recognise that wherever the population is highest will exhibit the highest level of bias. The unconscious bias isn't a bad thing, it's just a natural inclination of every human on earth. Trying to change the way people think and identify is bordering on some severe next level brainwashing, which is the real danger we face.

None of this is helping much as far as I can see. BLM are fighting ghosts. But succeeding in causing more racial division and anarchy in the process.

It doesn't help me either, my wife loves the club, I didn't even know black clubs existed so as you can imagine, I'm very often the only white guy there and I don't dance black! I've always felt a bit "on show" before, but I've always liked similar venues and her music is similar in beat to mine (house) so I've enjoyed it anyway, but now I'm going with my "white privilege". Thanks a bunch BLM.

These are all fair points (though anecdotal), however I must say that this includes no reference to the reason BLM began these actions in the first place, viz. the institutionalised negative treatment towards people of colour by the cops in the US which has been so far largely unaddressed despite some very vocal peaceful efforts.

 

Of course, the argument that the message has been lost with everything else that has gone on is salient, but how exactly can that problem be addressed - or if there no problem at all/we should we just leave it be and accept it as collateral of the society we inhabit and humans are always gonna be prejudiced because "reasons" (which I think does seem to be implied here)?

Edited 16 June 2020 by leicsmac

[Benguin]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Consensus doesn't make something objective - absolutely right, but nor does it need to.

 

Personally, I think it's highly likely that a majority consensus of people, if they had known the full extent of slavery and its consequences carried out by the elite few in their name, would have been utterly against the idea - but unfortunately we'll never know if that was the case or not so we'll never be sure, all we have is its legality on paper which wasn't subject to anywhere near absolute public scrutiny at the time (considering the time and the disparity in wealth, class and access to knowledge as a result). Simply, we can't say with absolute certainty that a consensus of people back then thought slavery was morally wrong but then we also cannot say the opposite with any certainty, either. All I have to go on is a hunch, but I'm sticking with it in lack of any harder evidence.

 

If I remember right certain parts of Abrahamic religious texts have something to say about the positive qualities of slavery? Of course, it does depend on interpretation of those texts yet again, which is one of the reasons that I'm not going along with the idea of objective morality -  even if we've been given an objective morality from a deity it's of no more use to us than other human inventions because it, like those inventions, will always be open to fallible human interpretation.

 

Incidentally, I utterly reject the rather obvious inference here that one has to belong to a particular religion (which one of over 4,000, exactly?) to have a moral compass actually worth anything - as if theistic concepts of morality are somehow more sound than others and it's impossible to draw the same moral conclusions from other sources, like simple evolutionary survival - and I totally stand by my idea that the ideas of invented human morality hold as much value as those who would be given by a creator. Though some of them may change, the human instinct to survive and to bond as a group to do so means some moral concepts, while in theory still subjective, are pretty clearly delineated. You are wrong about "atoms in motion" not caring about what other ones think, because when those atoms gather in a way that is called life, most often that life wants to continue and as such will care about those other groups of atoms because it is in their best interest to do so. Biochemistry, not something ephemeral, is the driver of that, IMO - Occam's Razor applies.

 

With the last few questions, the answer to all of them is similar - my own fallible human understanding is what I put stock in, as well of that of my fellow human beings. And that applies to every single human on the planet. It could well be that in a few hundred years mankind will look back at us as incredibly backward and primitive from a moral point of view, but even if we can say as a legacy that we "did our best" that is still their prerogative and them doing it will keep showing that humans, as a species, are progressing morally - as they should. And, if a deity in the image of the Abrahamic religions did exist, I think it's the height of human arrogance to think that we would know what such a being would even want or be able to comprehend its motives.

Will answer this properly later as I'm off out but just quickly want to touch on one point. Christopher Hitchens did this a lot to shift focus on the actual question in debates. I'm not saying atheists can't be moral, I'm saying atheist can't justify why we are objectively moral. So the question then is do objective morals exist because if they do, an atheist would need to justify how this is possible without a deity, I don't think there is an argument against there existence that warrants any credibility thus far. Sam Harris's attempts have been cute though. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

Will answer this properly later as I'm off out but just quickly want to touch on one point. Christopher Hitchens did this a lot to shift focus on the actual question in debates. I'm not saying atheists can't be moral, I'm saying atheist can't justify why we are objectively moral. So the question then is do objective morals exist because if they do, an atheist would need to justify how this is possible without a deity, I don't think there is an argument against there existence that warrants any credibility thus far. Sam Harris's attempts have been cute though. 

Right, and I'm saying that no one, not even the religious, can (because subjective fallible human interpretation means we can't ever truly know the will of such a cosmic entity, including on morality) and that we humans don't have to (subjective morality driven in large part by our instinct to survive is no different in terms of observable results from such an objective morality when the rules set by both are the same as there is zero empirical proof whatsoever for afterlife judgement).

 

As such, no, objective morality cannot exist so long as human interpretation remains flawed, but then it doesn't need to for humanity to still do things that are "as good" from any human POV anyway.

 

Later.

[WigstonWanderer]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

How do we know It's working? What is the measurement if there is no objectivity? 

 

When I said “what works”, I meant what works for society. I imagine laws and morality to have evolved in a sort of Darwinian way. Poor laws and morality will lead to poor outcomes for that society or instabilities that cause them to be changed or overthrown. I believe this is what has happened in practice, and religious law eg. Mosaic law (10 commandments, etc) fits into this quite nicely.

 

Perhaps my view is a little lightweight for the current discussion. My father (deeply religious) would discuss this with you for weeks.

[iniesta]

15 minutes ago, Captain... said:

One example is disability allowance and the ridiculous testing now required:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-disability-assessment-personal-independent-payment-a8191726.html

 

Another is the unfair sanctions imposed on jobseekers:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/24/benefit-sanctions-trivial-breaches-and-administrative-errors

 

 

There are many more ways in which benefits are being cut and reduced. The problem is there are people exploiting the system which calls for people to say it's to generous and costs too much and probably more people being let down by the system which leads to people calling for the system to be made easier and more generous. The fact both are true makes reform harder but the trend over the last few years has been to cut benefit payments at the expense of those that need it the most.

I agree the disability allowance is unfair, sadly ruined by those taking advantage.

 

From what i know personally, i take the report by the guardian with a pinch of salt. If you have a valid and provable reason for not attending appointments, you will not he sanctioned. 

 

The list of examples came from an anonymised list of food bank clients. Not the best way to get reliable info imo.