Marvel Comics To Introduce Muslim Superhero

Post Reply New Topic

So, Stalin had a right to kill somewhere between twenty and thirty million of his own people? Did Hitler have the right to kill six million Jews too? Again, both believed they were doing the right thing by their own personal morality.

Since you simply ignored my objections on the Millian position on ethics rather than rebutting them, I will have to assume I'm right. Do you think that realities that you don't like will simply go away if you ignore them? If not, please explain the error in my reasoning. Otherwise, we are talking past each other, and there is no need to continue the conversation.

Assuming that you do wish to have a discussion, I would also ask you that if you accept Mill's position on ethics, is that a higher ethic which everybody should have to obey? Or do we have the right to disregard this moral imperative and decide for ourselves what is and isn't moral?

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 09 Nov 2013, 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

By the way, I've looked up that comic strip. Bosch Fawsten, who is the author of the comic book Pigman, is actually an ex-muslim, not a bigot. Apparently, he has a brother who has joined a group of Islamic jihadists.

I've been examining the to-and-fro on this thread. I would like to respond using what I would consider to be philosophical argumentation. However, I just don't think that is going to work. This is because: 1) every great philosopher has an internally coherent and rational system, whether he be Plato, Aristotle, Kant -- I'll even admit Mill into the mix -- so there is no way to "deconstruct" any philosophical system from the "inside" of said system. More profoundly: 2) it is impossible to use one philosophical system to expose the flaws of another. Now how can this be? Is not a philosophical proof a philosophical proof? Well, no. Philosophies differ from one another not so much according to their initial axioms, but more fundamentally according to the mode by which axioms are unfolded into conclusions . I know this may be a difficult concept to grasp, but it's actually very obvious. Aristotle and Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, do not reason in the same way.

I apologize if the former paragraph seemed tiresome.

Now back to morality. I am in a profession that requires me to witness human nature and action from the inside. What I have come to observe is that reason very rarely works when arguing morality because moral decisions are (for 99% of the population) generated in the WILL and not the INTELLECT. Operationally, the way morality usually works is that a human being will have a gut desire for something he or she wants, which then becomes that person's will. Only posteriorly will that person back-engineer his or her will into intellect to find an argument to justify the desire.

Do you do this? Or do you do ... "something else": I put the "something else" in quotes because what that "something else" is might frighten some and console others because, of necessity it requires a transcendent shift from human "will" to "Will" on the part of the ego. Many don't want to accept such a transcendent shift. But every major world religion speaks of such.

If you don't do this "something else" but rather have your morality emanate from your own particular will, that of course is your business; but you might want to consider what the ramifications would be for the future of humanity if each of us indulged in such a tactic, as well as the personal ramifications for yourself.

That's all I have to say on this topic for now. If you continued to this point, thank you for reading what I had to say.

Jono, interesting. It is now politically incorrect to criticize Muslims outside of very tightly circumscribed parameters, which, of course, are established by the politically correct themselves. So, there is logic in Bill's denunciation of Pigman as a bigot.

It's funny you should say that. Some of the most trenchant critics of Islamism and the strongest supporters of liberal secularism come from Muslim countries. I can name them, and they do an amazing job of showing up the Islamists for what they are: disgusting, backward, 7th century bigots.

One Iranian Muslim told me recently: "I come from Iran, where the country is infested with fundamentalists. Family members of mine were tortured so badly by the Ayatollah's goons that they can't walk even decades later. My family came to Britain to escape this, and Islamic fundamentalism is the very last thing I want to follow me and despoil my beautiful adopted homeland."

Last edited by Tequila on 09 Nov 2013, 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Librarian just informed me that he didn't quite agree with my post. I respect Librarian, whom I regard as having a very fine philosophic intellect, so that will be an interesting exchange. I hope.

I never said that Hitler or Stalin had a right to inflict their beliefs on anyone.
You can assume whatever you want to,most people do believe their opinions are the right ones.
As for Mills,I am not familiar with him,so I would have to do some reading.I can't blindly agree or disagree.

Okay... First off, you're talking about legal and moral systems as if they were the same things. Unless you live in a theocracy they aren't. Stop it.

To be sure, the legal system does often punish immoral activity, but it also ignores a lot of immoral activity, and compels a lot of indifferent activity.

Ethical systems are only concerned with perfecting the morals of people--certainly, that often has the side effect of producing law-abiding people as well.

My beef is only with the punitive approach to morality.


No. Once again, legal system =/= moral/ethical system. I'm only concerned with ethics here and the two most widespread ethical systems in the classical world were the Epicurean and Stoic systems. Both are Socratic and very similar at a practical level.

On a side note, I love what Seneca wrote in The Moral Letters about criminals at the games: *Philosophy Warning*
http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/moral_e ... #On_Crowds
Sorry for the big quote, but it is relevant and it is not hard to understand.




It is utter nonsense to claim that Socratic moral philosophy is beyond the understanding of common folk. As seen above, Seneca's moral essays are not hard to understand, and The Enchiridion was written specifically to be read and understood by the masses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchiridion_of_Epictetus


You can't achieve true morality via fear. Didn't Jesus say that the desire to sin was as bad as the sin itself? Simply suppressing sin through fear of punishment is not good enough.

Man is a rational animal. If you want him to behave morally, to really internalize morality without becoming some sort of crazy zealot, you have to teach him how to arrive at reasonable, moral judgements on his own. You have to show him why behaving morally is beneficial, and how it allows him to live a truly good life.

So let me reassert:
Pre-christian/Socratic ethical systems (Specifically Stoicism) maintained that moral behavior could be determined via reason and that moral behavior was necessary for a good/happy life. Therefore behaving morally was its own reward-no heaven or hell required.

You only need heaven and hell once you begin to classify arbitrary or indifferent behaviors as moral and immoral... Or when you expect people to behave morally without EXPLAINING WHY.

Besides it's appeal to fear of punishment, a big problem with Christianity is that it tries to dictate a lot of things beyond any reasonable code of morality. When it does that, it really cannot justify itself so it falls back on arguments like "BECAUSE GOD SAID SO, OR ELSE!"





*A lot of what passes for Christian morality today, was Stoic morality first.

Last edited by GoonSquad on 09 Nov 2013, 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are we talking about the same comic book creator? The guy I'm talking about, who had appeared on The Daily Show, hardly seemed to be of Middle Eastern background. The guy interviewed came across as a religious bigot out to attack Muslims in general, not just Jihadists.

GoonSquad,
Please, stop it. You do not understand Christianity. You are like a blind person expounding on the nonsense of color. The reason why the Christian does good is only because the Holy Spirit Who dwells within the Christian grants order to his conscience, and compels him with the feeling and thought of deepest conviction to do what is right no matter the cost. It is NOT a morality extrinsically imposed. It is intrinsic and comes from the deepest existential center of himself.

I speak from experience -- yes the experience I have had of God Himself. If you wish to dismiss it, that's your choice. But I have more conviction that God exists in me than that you exist.

I am so tired of people who think that the Catholic Church is a bullying voice. Without the Catholic Church, Western Civilization would have no science, no schools, no hospitals, no technology, and no morality. And if you think I am exaggerating just study history.

I know it may sound like I am speaking as an extremist. But when I read your posts I feel like a scientist listening to a bunch of stubborn-headed blowhards who have yet to accept the Standard Model of fundamental particles. To those outside the Church, you just don't accept the supercolliding forces which occur in the Christian Soul. The Holy Spirit is real, and when He speaks to the soul, He speaks in love, and it becomes irresistible and joyful to do what is right.

[/quote]

Okay, so you want me to admit that there's some objective morality that everyone should be subject to, but I can't... That level of arrogance just isn't in me, sorry.

The best I can do is tell you that I would act according to my understanding of morality.

However, because I cannot be sure that my understanding is absolutely correct, I will always allow others to act as "immorally"as they want, as long as they are only affecting themselves.

Once their actions begin to affect the outside world, I'm obliged to reconsider and act according to my best judgement. As I said before, that is all I can honestly do.

That's all anyone can honestly do.

He doesn't look Middle Eastern but I'm pretty sure that we're talking about the same guy. His first book was called "The Infidel" and it was about the origins of the hero and how he started battling jihadists after 9/11. From what I've seen, I think it's really a satirical thing against Islamism:

http://1389blog.com/2013/09/06/bosch-fawstin-a-recovered-muslim-speaks/

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/03/02/bosch-fawstin-and-pigman-hit-the-daily-show-transcript/

[quote="JSBACHlover"]I've been examining the to-and-fro on this thread. I would like to respond using what I would consider to be philosophical argumentation. However, I just don't think that is going to work. This is because: 1) every great philosopher has an internally coherent and rational system, whether he be Plato, Aristotle, Kant -- I'll even admit Mill into the mix -- so there is no way to "deconstruct" any philosophical system from the "inside" of said system.

I agree that a system can't be deconstructed from the inside. In fact, sociology tells us that the primary dynamic is just the opposite. When viewed as ideologies, philosophical systems develop their own internal morals amongst their adherents. Disregard that system's morals and ostracism usually results; respect is given to those who not only reinforce group morals, but those who push them to ever greater extremes. It is a basic dynamic of groups, and adherents to a given philosophy are a group.

More profoundly: 2) it is impossible to use one philosophical system to expose the flaws of another. Now how can this be? Is not a philosophical proof a philosophical proof? Well, no. Philosophies differ from one another not so much according to their initial axioms, but more fundamentally according to the mode by which axioms are unfolded into conclusions . I know this may be a difficult concept to grasp, but it's actually very obvious. Aristotle and Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, do not reason in the same way.

Before I proceed, do I understand you correctly if you are telling me that those inside the system cannot make valid criticisms, and those outside the system cannot make valid criticisms? If I understand you, I've got some serious objections to your position. I also object to your statement on the importance of "axioms", or what I would call presumptions.

I apologize if the former paragraph seemed tiresome.

Now back to morality. I am in a profession that requires me to witness human nature and action from the inside. What I have come to observe is that reason very rarely works when arguing morality because moral decisions are (for 99% of the population) generated in the WILL and not the INTELLECT. Operationally, the way morality usually works is that a human being will have a gut desire for something he or she wants, which then becomes that person's will. Only posteriorly will that person back-engineer his or her will into intellect to find an argument to justify the desire.

Great point. Morality's function isn't to inhibit us from those evils we don't desire, but those we do. I would add that most people do that which the group celebrates, and avoids that which the group condemns, which is yet another characteristic of morality.


Do you do this? Or do you do ... "something else": I put the "something else" in quotes because what that "something else" is might frighten some and console others because, of necessity it requires a transcendent shift from human "will" to "Will" on the part of the ego. Many don't want to accept such a transcendent shift. But every major world religion speaks of such.

If you don't do this "something else" but rather have your morality emanate from your own particular will, that of course is your business; but you might want to consider what the ramifications would be for the future of humanity if each of us indulged in such a tactic, as well as the personal ramifications for yourself.

I agree completely. Due to inherent imperfections in human reasoning, all systems will have flaws. It is also the case that science can be viewed as a method needed because things are not always what they seem; if they were, common sense would suffice to explain our world. And since there is no science of morality worthy of the name, our best hope is to go with those systems with a time-proven track record.

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 09 Nov 2013, 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

On this placard, I'm sure that the niqābi and her child are only complaining about the Israeli presence in the West Bank.

Great, glad to hear it. You need to go back and reread some posts... It was actually TheLibrarian who suggested that many Christians are only good due to threat of Hellfire.


I have no problem with people who believe in God. Heck, I believe in the big lugg too!


I have studied a lot of history... You're right. The Church has done a lot to benefit Western civilization (some of it unwittingly, but it still helped ). If it wasn't for Vatican archives, I might not have Seneca, or Marcus Aurelius, or Epictetus, or Musonius Rufus to read... THANKS!

The church has done it's bit to impede civilization too.

For what it's worth, I like your new Pope, and I have far fewer problems with the Catholic church than I do with protestant fundies.


Dude, again I don't have a problem with any of that. If it works for you, great.

Personally, I think God's greatest gift to mankind is reason and an innate sense of right and wrong. I believe the best way to honor and repay God for his gift is by using that gift to find your moral way. It is so much better than being driven by unquestioning ignorance and blind fear... Don't you think?

The hate people induce on their children.