Queen Mary student brought sixth formers to join ISIS

It's so sad when young people basically throw their lives away to join ISIS. Most will regret it, but it'll be too late unfortunately...

I'm not sure how you could feel sorry for people joining a death cult that kills and rapes innocents. Anyone more than 7 years should know right and wrong, if they didn't by then, then there isn't much hope for them and I'd rather there weren't anywhere near me.

I'm not sure how you could feel sorry for people joining a death cult that kills and rapes innocents. Anyone more than 7 years should know right and wrong, if they didn't by then, then there isn't much hope for them and I'd rather there weren't anywhere near me.

Where do you think 'right and wrong' comes from? You're eluding to there being an absolute morality, and that 7 year olds should have insight into it. Where do you think they would be able to obtain it from? Is it just from being a mature enough human being?

But then, I thought the most important thing to humans was to survive? I thought all that matters is that we survive to pass our genes on to our kids, so that they live and have the same goals, and be a part of this (hopefully... I think) endless cycle? So then these relatively modern constructs of what is right and wrong, like 'killing is wrong' 'stealing is wrong' 'criminal justice systems and democracy are 'right' and are authorities that should be protected' are all just constructs put in place to protect the survival of the human race... right?

But then surely there comes a time when surviving would force you to priortise your life over others? What that be acceptable? And what about animal rights? And aren't people's decisions solely the result of their genes and their interactions with the environment? Then how can justice exist?

My point is this: people don't agree on morality. The idea of there being an absolute morality, without there being an authority to make that judgement (ie. God) doesn't actually make sense. And a 7 year old probably wouldn't have considered the fact that for there to be an absolute morality (eg. killing another human is definitely wrong), there must be a god-figure to assert it.

I would hope an eight year old (I did say more than seven) would think hurting others is wrong, the people in this example were more than 15. I never said there was such a thing as absolute morality, there isn't, morality is based on context and the context is people willingly traveling from developed countries to support a terrorist organisation. That is immoral, I know that because I have empathy, I don't like being hurt and these people are supporting a group that hurts others. The more empathy you have the better idea you have of what is and isn't moral.

It shouldn't be illegal to declare that you support isis, what happened to freedom of speech people?! Ever since charlie hebdo everybody has been raving about freedom of speech but when it comes to freedom of speech for muslims (not jews) its a whole different story, blatant islamophobia!

But how can you assert that to be objectively true? How can you assert that people should be empathetic? You're saying that supporting a terrorist organisation is immoral, because it's not empathetic. But people fight in wars where their aim is to kill the opposition. That's not empathetic. They've made priorities. In the same way, supporters of terrorists have made different priorities. But with a morality based on context, or rather, on our perceptions of the context (which differ), I would argue that you cannot assert that it's immoral. I would simply ask the question, why is it immoral? Why should you empathise? Why do you think what you think?

But how can you assert that to be objectively true? How can you assert that people should be empathetic? You're saying that supporting a terrorist organisation is immoral, because it's not empathetic. But people fight in wars where their aim is to kill the opposition. That's not empathetic. They've made priorities. In the same way, supporters of terrorists have made different priorities. But with a morality based on context, or rather, on our perceptions of the context (which differ), I would argue that you cannot assert that it's immoral. I would simply ask the question, why is it immoral? Why should you empathise? Why do you think what you think?

Well @sacca ISIS is hardly a good cause.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You ask, 'How can one assert that people should be empathetic?' On this earth there are numerous different moral systems of different tribes, groups, religions, . . . This fact alone does not offer proof that there is no objective morality. I believe sincerely that there is an inbuilt human moral compass which is in us all at birth. We do not like to see others suffer unnecessarily. If we do it is an anomaly and indicator of psychological malfunction/illness/disturbance. Even some other species, dogs for example, have a natural propensity for empathy. Scientific tests have proved it to be fact. The answer is obvious. We are human beings and in order to live together we need to care and have compassion. If you don't think empathy is necessary than you paint a loveless, dark picture for humankind.

You ask, 'Why is it immoral?' It's immoral because the outfit they wish to join rapes and kills innocents, tortures, enslaves, defiles priceless historic monuments, bla bla bla. You might argue that's a subjective morality. I'd say no. Some things are plain evil and we all should know it. Perhaps some cannot readily empathise and know in their conscience when something hurtful to an innocent party is wrong, because they have been psychologically conditioned to think in a way contra to what is fundamentally good. There are so many fine writings that elucidate much better than I can on why kindness, empathy, compassion etc is the right and noble path for a human being. The opposite is tyranny, cruelty, evil. Seek wisdom and you will find it. It's easier than it's ever been now with google at your fingertips.We are moral beings with a brain to think with. Any young fool knows how ISIS treats those individuals with beliefs different to their own and it ain't a pretty picture is it? It's a grotesque and macabre one. If one wants to contribute to a group whose trademark is callous mass cruelty, then why do you think that would not be an immoral act?

You said morality exists to protect the human race, my country has had less genocide, killing, crime, etc. in the past century than most. People are thriving here and one of those reasons is because it has a better idea of morality than your average Islamic country. Take a look at all of the countries currently doing well, I'm sure their laws are pretty similar. The laws the majority of them agree on is what you should look to for moral guidance.

Psychopaths have been shown to lack activity in certain parts of their brain that's related to empathy. If a person has more activity in those parts of his brain then he's more capable of empathy and therefore has a better moral compass. The older you are, the more time you've had to develop empathy. These are rough but objective ways to measure how moral a country/person is.

Oh I agree that there is an objective morality. Wholeheartedly. But my point is that it must come from God.

This idea that an objective morality is solely human, and perhaps that it stems from a general human instinct to survive and help other humans to survive, doesn't really hold in my opinion. People generally think that it's important to be considerate of other people, but then many will also prioritise themselves over others if that's what's needed to survive. Then that morality isn't objective then. It's only there for selfish reasons, and so is subject to change if personal cost outweigh benefit...

What do you think?

Oh I agree that there is an objective morality. Wholeheartedly. But my point is that it must come from God.

This idea that an objective morality is solely human, and perhaps that it stems from a general human instinct to survive and help other humans to survive, doesn't really hold in my opinion.

People generally think that it's important to be considerate of other people, but then many will also prioritise themselves over others if that's what's needed to survive.

Then that morality isn't objective then. It's only there for selfish reasons, and so is subject to change if personal cost outweigh benefit...

'activity' in part of the brain? People are more complex than that.

There is no study where the findings are that criminality/psychopathy is caused by something as vague as 'brain activity' (or lack).

Rough, but objective? But fully grown people disagree on what is right or wrong. People's moralities are largely influenced by their experiences. It's why laws are debated and changed.

I should repeat that I actually agree that there is an objective morality. I just think that it is revealed to us through God. I can't see how there can be an objective morality if there is no god to assert it.

To act morally may require making personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. Good is not always about personal gain but about doing the right thing.

I think the moral teachings of the Buddha are of a similar enlightened level - gentle and insightful, fostering compassion for others.

Yes I agree in an objective, God given, divine universal law. It involves personal sacrifice,

I also believe God is forgiving and loving and ultimately mysterious and immeasurable - certainly not some capricious anthropomorphic being of vengeance and silly promises.

None of the existing gods is moral.



It does if you consider it under the framework of evolution. People who do not help other humans generally do not survive, and cannot mate with other humans to pass on their genes. It certainly holds much water than to claim that it comes from 'something' 'somewhere' we have absolutely no idea what 'it' is.



And if morality comes from 'god', this suggests that one or some of the following:
1. 'god' has failed to give everyone morality;
2. 'god' does not think giving everyone morality is a good thing (but is this behaviour moral in itself?);
3. 'god' thinks it is normal to be selfish.



Morality is not objective, and it's also very complex under different contexts with different concerns and stakeholders.



The brain is very complex.



Yes, there are.





So on what basis can you see that there is objective morality from anything anyone?



Does 'god' need to 'assert' it further from the point of creation?

Once again, your reasoning shows that either 'god' is unable or unwilling to install morality in everyone.



Doing the 'right' thing makes you feel better about yourself - that is a personal gain, and the exact reason why anyone does anything good, ever if it costs them them effort, money, or their lives.



The Buddha was a human, and in buddhism everyone can be a 'godlike being'. Now tell me again how humans can't be moral on their own?



Being able to feel better about yourself is not a total sacrifice.



For someone who asserts that humans can do little, you're doing a whole lot - you're creating 'god' in your mind and setting the moral codes for god based on nothing but your personal conviction.

'activity' in part of the brain? People are more complex than that. There is no study where the findings are that criminality/psychopathy is caused by something as vague as 'brain activity' (or lack).

Rough, but objective? But fully grown people disagree on what is right or wrong. People's moralities are largely influenced by their experiences. It's why laws are debated and changed.

I should repeat that I actually agree that there is an objective morality. I just think that it is revealed to us through God. I can't see how there can be an objective morality if there is no god to assert it.

Doing the 'right' thing makes you feel better about yourself - that is a personal gain, and the exact reason why anyone does anything good, ever if it costs them them effort, money, or their lives.

The Buddha was a human, and in buddhism everyone can be a 'godlike being'. Now tell me again how humans can't be moral on their own?