Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 2:34 PM
357 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, granpa, jar, Joe T, PaulK, Tangle (7 members, 350 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,807 Year: 25,413/21,208 Month: 1,040/2,338 Week: 161/450 Day: 33/52 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 663
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 271 of 1004 (799886)
02-17-2017 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Pressie
02-17-2017 6:50 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
Again, you still struggle with the basics. Atheism is a disbelieve in the existence of Gods. That's it. Atheism doesn't try to explain morals.
Let's try another way. Atheism is a disbelieve in the existence of Gods. That's it. Atheism doesn't try to explain how an Airbus A380 flies.

Let me see if I can help.

Consider this statement:

"Theism is a belief in the existence of God(s). Theism doesn't try to explain morals."

Someone who is a 'theist' does not yet have any moral frame of reference since theism in and of itself does not say anything about morals or morality. It is a response to a claim. In the same way atheism is a response to the same claim.

People who are 'theists', such Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the various sects within are all responding to the same claim in the same way. Yet they CLEARLY have different views on what is moral. Specific tenets in the Muslim religion, such as how they treat women, are things we find morally inconsistent with our western values. Christians and their dogma around homosexuality also have morals that we consider inconsistent with our values and our constitution.

So within two 'theist' camps, we have differing views on morality. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that these morals have to be subjective in nature.

To drive the point home further, consider slavery. This was a sanctioned legal practice in our country until the Civil War. It was also sanctioned in the Bible; the supposed word of god. Yet we all now as a society agree that slavery is actually immoral. Our society evolved and our morals evolved accordingly. Once again, proof positive that morals are indeed subjective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 6:50 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2017 6:56 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13718
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 272 of 1004 (799893)
02-17-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:59 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:

My point was that if there is nothing that is good or bad, moral or immoral, then obviously you can't have or explain morals.


There is nothing that is absolutely good or bad, moral or immoral. What we think is good or bad, moral or immoral is made up in our heads. Different people in different situations have different ideas of what is good or bad, moral or immoral.

As I have mentioned before, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us is easy enough to explain - it's good for the group and good for the individual.

Dawn Bertot writes:

To use Modulous example of music. if I were to imagine that musical notes had meaning outside some vague interpretation I gave them, they would still just be, meaningless sounds to the universe, the alleged creator of your biological brain


Exactly. Musical notes have no "meaning" outside our brains and neither do ideas of morality.

Dawn Bertot writes:

You would need to show how it and your entire life has meaning for actual meaning to exist.


Absolute meaning doesn't exist (or if it did, you would have no way of knowing what it was).

Dawn Bertot writes:

The first specific instruction I have is that God is infinite and thus his morality is absolute as a result of that.


That's not an instruction at all. It's just a vague empty statement that isn't even in the Bible.

Dawn Bertot writes:

But if the same source tells me he is infinte in knowledge, then it not required for ME to know what the exact line of what constitutes murder, to understand he does understand


Since you're not omniscient, how do you know the source is accurate?

You keep demonstrating that you DON'T know what absolutely is right or wrong. You can't tell us when it is right to kill another person and when it is wrong. Deciding whether a person had malicious or deceitful intent requires just as much finite wisdom from you as it does from anybody else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:59 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:16 AM ringo has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7442
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 273 of 1004 (799898)
02-17-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:56 AM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
I showed its possible, by showing hopeless inconsistency in even the very words you used to describe morality, in this instance Hatred.

Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion. Hating something is not immoral or moral - it is amoral.

If the Nazis were wrong for thier hatred, then you would have to show why.

I can give reasons why I think what the Nazis did was wrong, immoral etc. But what would be the point? I'm here to explain morality, not provide specific moral arguments for or against specific actions.

Well no, at best this is an explanation of things happening

And - as we both agree - my perspective on morality is that it is certain things happening, that's all that I need to do in order to explain morals and morality.

Again, why is this different than the totality of things as having any real meaning. Certainly there is a way to demonstrate that your alleged meanings as meanings in reality are somehow greater than the whole of everything, which you fellas are found of claiming has no meaning.

This is meaningless. After attempting to parse it into English all I can say is that I don't think my meanings are greater than the whole of everything.

Even if evolution were true, it would not help your delimma

My purpose in this thread is to show that I can explain morality. Evolution can be used to explain morality.

I guess I should not be surprised you actually think there are many definitions of morality. When in actuality, it either exists or it does not.

That you and I differ on how we define morality more or less proves my case. We both agree it exists. I just don't think there is One True Morality.

No I'm not saying you can't explain them because there not objective, I'm saying you can't explain them because reality won't allow it.

Take it up with reality, since I've done it. I can't explain One True Morality, but I don't need to as I don't think it exists. I can explain why people are both kind and mean to one another in varying ways. I can explain why people disagree over moral issues. I can explain morality by rejecting One True Morality as either incoherent or unknowable and instead simply explaining the behaviour and emotions that we have come to call morality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:56 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:55 AM Modulous has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 274 of 1004 (799904)
02-17-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dawn Bertot
02-17-2017 5:51 AM


Re: How?
I'm not sure what you mean? Why would something being beautiful to me require assuming that meaning has a purpose in my mind?

I mean: I see it, and I like it. That's beauty in my mind. Where's the "purpose"?

Because it's simply an imagination, it cannot and does no actually exist.

What does that have to do with a purpose? And what do you mean by "actually" existing such that imaginations aren't existing? Are you simply talking about existing "objectively"? Subjective experiences do exist, they just don't exist objectively.

If I imagined I WAS REALITY ITSELF and that I created everything, that would not make it real

The fact that imagining some things does not make them real does not mean that an imagination, itself, is not a real thing.

I can imagine an apple. That imagination exists as a thing in my mind. But it is not a real apple.

Now, where's the purpose?

Nobody can show that, and yet, we all find meaning in our subjective experiences. How do you explain that?

It's simple to explain, in the context of alleged morals. Meaning is as nonexistent as a concept or idea, in a strictly blind biological process. The universe itself would have to have some meaning, for other biological process to have meaning. So if the universe which actually exists has no meaning, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something that DOES Not exist, could actually have meaning.

That doesn't tell me how you explain that we all find meaning in our subjective experiences?

The universe itself would have to have some meaning, for other biological process to have meaning.

Wrong; Biological processes (brains thinking) can invent meanings within the universe even if the universe, itself, does not have some meaning.

Why? Why not just leave it at that: they are subjective experiences that exist. And we can't know if they are right or wrong, or good or bad.

Ok, so from you position you are admitting that these things don't exist, correct?

Of course not, for the nth time: they do exist, they are just subjective rather than objective.

If we don't characterize Morality as right or wrong, any action like stealing is perfectly ok correct.

We characterize behaviors and actions as right or wrong within a particular context, and those characterizations are what a morality is.

Stealing may be perfectly ok, for example, if you are feeding someone who is starving to death and there's no way around it.

There is no objective or absolute morality where we can outline when and when it is not okay to steal. Its a case-by-case basis.

As I've demonstrated without fear of contradiction there is no such thing as relatively morality.

I reject that you've demonstrated that. All morality is relative. There is nothing that we can identify as an objective morality. They all depend on the situation.

You've or anybody here has failed, to demonstrate that imaginations are actually real.

Do you, or do you not, have an imagination? Is it nothing or is it something?

A standard is required if you want it to make any logical sense

I'm sure you can see the nonsesne in your phrase, "everything becomes a Standard in or of its own". If everything is a standard and the standards differ contiuously, then of course there is no standard.

A standard is only required for an objective or absolulte morality. But we can't know if one of those exists or not. We do know that relative moralies exist, everybody has one.

Don't you have a morality? Can you demonstrate that it is objective? If not, why can't you accept that it is relative?

You don't get to make Morality whatever you want. No thinking person buys that kind of nonsense

Every civilization throughout history has had a morality that they made. Thinking people buy this kind of sense all the time.

Even if you could demonstrate this in some ACTUAL way, your still left with the problem of showing IT as anything more than another biological process, in an already meaningless universe.

The biological process of our brains thinking creates the meanings that form moralities.

Excellent. Now show me the relative standard, from you perspective, of why it is less moral to kill a worm than a rabbit. And how you came to that "conclusion". And I'll show you that your way of proceeding is nonsense. That's assuming nonsense is objective. Is it?

Rabbits are smarter than worms and the smarter something is the harder it is to justify killing it.

You are correct that I cannot say that this rule of morality is the best one, or the right one, or even correct, but it is mine and it does exist. It's just that it is subjective rather than objective.

Your above statement is a self defeating statement it doesn't need my help to show it fallacious. As you corectly pointed out, everything becomes a standard. Unfortunarely, there is no way for that to make sense in reality

If by "in reality", you mean "objectively", then I agree with there being no way for it to make sense. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist. It exists subjectively.

So I would ask again. Is it absolutely true that your above statement about subjective morality is true, indeed. Or is it true subjectively. It can't be both and make sense

There is no such thing as an absolute truth except for this statement.

So no, my statement about subjective morality is not absolutely true, but it is a truth nonetheless.

They have the meaning that we assign to them. For instance: That which is helpful we call good and that which is hurtful we call bad.

So if you kill and eat animals, other life forms, that's helpful to you but hurtful to them.

And if a cow eats grass then it's helpful to the cow but hurtful to the grass.

Do you think cows are immoral? Do you think it is immoral to eat meat?

OR we don't know and have no real way of knowing or what. Oh I see, you mean that kind of relative morality

We do have a real way of knowing: We experience and think about it and determine how it makes us feel and whether or not it is a good or bad thing.

Being helpful or hurtful are real things that happen in the real world that we can observe. There is an objective basis for morality that ties it to the real world, but the meanings we assign to it and the determinations of right and wrong that we make are what is subjective. They are products of our minds. That doesn't make them non-existent.

And this is exactly why your morality does not exist in reality.

If by "in reality" you only mean "objectively" then you are not disagreeing with me.

Being helpful and hurtful only get meaning when they help or hurt you. You do not ascribe,the same meaning when it comes to other species, or,even other humans at times.

No, I am often capable of determining if my actions are helpful or hurtful to another being.

Something being completely inconsistent and irrational most of,the time is still irrational and inconsistent, no matter what verbiage you attach to it or how you describe it.

Being relative doesn't mean inconsistent. And it can be rationalized so it isn't irrational.

Even if they existed objectively, they cant be described as morality. The part, in this instance, your thought is not greater than that which created it. No way to show meaning in a real sense, since death cancels out your so called meaning. Death being another biological process, greater than even you small part of subjective morality, correct. Then there's the problem of you labeling it a moral. Moral is only a concept of the imagination, if there is nothing greater than the universe, with no meaning, this contrived verbiage is just that, contrived verbiage.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. But adding qualifiers like being "actually" real, or things being in a "real" sense, and that my explanations are "so called" meanings, is making it look like you are desperately trying to find some kind of difference that just isn't there.

"Oh, yeah, that's real... but it's not really real!"

Then of course there's the problem of having any kind of consistency. Assuming consistency, even matters in your subjective morality. Those two words together are like saying the Existence of nonexistence

Only because you are operating under a false dichotomy that a morality has to be objective to be real.

I never said being nonobjective doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm saying that you are labeling something that may or may not exist as subjective, which means they may not actually exist. Subjective is a concept itself. Even if they did actually exist, that is a far cry from MAKING them a moral or morality. Morality is another concept you invented, which is not only inconsistent in your structure, but hopeless subjective, therefore all intents and purposes, nonexistent.

You say that you are not saying that non-objective doesn't mean nonexistent, but then you go on to say that something is nonexistent because it is subjective.

Pardon me for seeing you as confused and contradicting yourself.

Yes I can objectively show you that your meaning has no meaning, that's assuming meaning has meaning in your explanation of things as subjective. I can objectively show you that I'd meaning is

Huh!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-17-2017 5:51 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:56 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 275 of 1004 (800118)
02-20-2017 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Tangle
02-17-2017 8:05 AM


Which, as we saw with Fred, led to very immoral behaviour. We saw the before and after effects twice. How do you explain this?

Ok I'll play along, which part of his behavior could be characterized as immoral. Show me the action in his actions

I can't follow this, sorry. Imaginings of what?

The hallucinations of a psychopath, are these actually real. Sense there is brain change, how do his alleged brain changes become immoral? How did you decide this

Bertot writes

I'll keep repeating this, and maybe one of you fellas will finally see it. If you want to characterize your FEELINGs or BEHAVIORS as morality, then you would be obligated show how and why, every persons thoughts or perceptions on ANY GIVEN POINT, Could all be correct or incorrect at the same time. If God did not exist, subjective morality, as you characterize it would be the height of stupidity, for any thinking person.

Tangle writes

I can't follow this either. If you keep repeating it and no-one understands you, perhaps there's a problem with what you're saying?

Oh I'm pretty sure you understand. Playing the dumb card doesn't help. In your system of so called morality, literally ever person could have different perspective on any given point. Meaning the whole system itself becomes utter nonsesne. The Nazis were either moral or immoral. If everyone gets a choice as to whether they were, yoursystem becomes nonsense

So would you tell me, we're the Nazis moral or immoral. What made thier actions immoral, if thier society thought it was perfectly acceptable.

Yes we know you've asserted this but as you've read, no-one agrees with you. We are all saying that morality is very obviously not objective or absolute. We can demonstrate how and why this is an obvious truth by showing you how it changes between cultures and between times. It also changes with brain-state.

This is all demonstrably true - we can prove it quite easily and have done here.

So far you've not made any coherent argument or demonstrated why something that we see change can be absolute.

Evolution changes from one state to another, time period to time period, that does not mean that it is moral or immoral. If your imaginations from a biological brain change from one time period, or people do things differently from generation to generation, this does not make it moral or immoral.

You still haven't excapted from your initial problem demonstrating it's more than some biological process. Why won't you provide an argument that shows that your imaginations are greater than, the entire process called existent, which is blind and without purpose. Death doesn't care about your so called morality. The only way from morality to exist is to have a absolute standard and something outside our imaginations, greater than those.

You need to get busy

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Tangle, posted 02-17-2017 8:05 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Tangle, posted 02-20-2017 9:28 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 276 of 1004 (800119)
02-20-2017 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by RAZD
02-17-2017 8:10 AM


Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Fallacy of argument from authority plus you are reading animals into it when that isn't necessarily implied.

But it is curious that you quote an atheist talking about rationally explaining morals to argue that atheists cannot rationally explain morals. LOLZ, so funny.

Well if we are not going to include animals in your alleged subjective morality, why don't we also exclude all others that disagree with us. Why don't we say they aren't necessarily implied as well. Nice how you make things up as you go along. Oh wait, that's the meaning of subjective isn't it. Of course I might be wrong, in your system all I have have to do is just imagine I'm right and whamo I'm right. Nice system

That being the case, could I assume that you have a different morality that applies to the animal kingdom. If you have a different one what is the standard u use and how do you justify it

Secondly, simply because I quote from Mr Harris, doesn't mean I think he did or can explain morals. His problems in actually establish one are no different than yours

Showing again that you don't understand the argument that morals are subjective codes, and different people have different, albeit similar, codes ... because their upbringings differ, their learning differs, their opinions differ.

Showing again, that you can't demonstrate that you so called morals are nothing more than more biological by products of other proccesses. If you could simply demonstrate that Synergy is something more than biological, then u might have a point. But how will you do this. If u could simply show that your imagination of a moral has anymore meaning than the earth rotating around the sun, then you have a point. But you can't just imagine it, death won't care that you think you had a purpose.

In your subjective opinion ... But I ignore them because they have no bearing on the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals, which is what your thread claims cannot happen ... and yet it has.

You are now desperately going down rabbit holes to distract everyone from the fact that your thesis is invalidated.

You really don't see any iorny in your above statement do you? All it would take for me to demonstrate you don't actually have a moral, in reality, is to, SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. In your system of so called subjective morality, I would be as correct as you would, which would make it a nonsensical moot point. Or I would be as incorrect as you are, or neither of us would be right or wrong. NOW ARE YOU STARTING TO GET IT. Your system just imagines and makes stuff up as you go along. But bless your heart that's all you've got.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2017 8:10 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 2:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 277 of 1004 (800120)
02-20-2017 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Modulous
02-17-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
Hatred is not morality. It's an emotion. Hating something is not immoral or moral - it is amoral.

So are you saying that for an individual, morals don't come from emotions or feelings or perceptions

Ican give reasons why I think what the Nazis did was wrong, immoral etc. But what would be the point? I'm here to explain morality, not provide specific moral arguments for or against specific actions.

So I was correct you really don't think thier actions were immoral in actuality, just in some imagination of your mind. Thanks for clearing that up for me and the readers

And - as we both agree - my perspective on morality is that it is certain things happening, that's all that I need to do in order to explain morals and morality.

That's not even getting started

This is meaningless. After attempting to parse it into English all I can say is that I don't think my meanings are greater than the whole of everything.

Hardly meaningless. If it's clear that the universe is meaningless and has no purpose and it will end in the same way, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your life has no meaning. Your only a very very very very small part of the whole. Your imagining meaning would logically just be another biological process. Are you starting to see how hopeless your position actually is

My purpose in this thread is to show that I can explain morality. Evolution can be used to explain morality.

So the very thing that starts with blind Mindless causes and purposes, causes more pain suffering and death and will end in infinite regression, can be used to help explain morals

That you and I differ on how we define morality more or less proves my case. We both agree it exists. I just don't think there is One True Morality.

Well that's a good start

Take it up with reality, since I've done it. I can't explain One True Morality, but I don't need to as I don't think it exists. I can explain why people are both kind and mean to one another in varying ways. I can explain why people disagree over moral issues. I can explain morality by rejecting One True Morality as either incoherent or unknowable and instead simply explaining the behaviour and emotions that we have come to call morality.

Well I've already taken it up with reality. When I spoke to him he said Dawn, if God does not exist, then there are only biological processes. Anything that can be described as kind or mean is just verbiage thrown at more of my biological processes. Then he said to me Dawn, those people that think I care about thier so called morality, I'll destroy them in death, then where will that leave thier morality. So he said, let them think whatever they want, thinking is just another of my processes, not anymore important in the scheme of things

I said to reality, we'll that makes perfect sense. Then he said to me, could you leave me alone I don't really care what you imagine or think, it doesn't make a difference to me

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2017 1:20 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2017 2:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1800
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 278 of 1004 (800121)
02-20-2017 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Diomedes
02-17-2017 10:10 AM


Re: sorry for lateness
Nope.

Diomedes writes:

"Theism is a belief in the existence of God(s). Theism doesn't try to explain morals.

Nope. Nice try. Theists claim to explain morals. They even try to legislate their loose morals on everyone else.

Atheists just disbelief in the existence of gods. That's it. Nothing to do with morals.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Diomedes, posted 02-17-2017 10:10 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 279 of 1004 (800122)
02-20-2017 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2017 2:21 PM


Re: How?
The fact that imagining some things does not make them real does not mean that an imagination, itself, is not a real thing.

I can imagine an apple. That imagination exists as a thing in my mind. But it is not a real apple.

Now, where's the purpose?

The imagination, even if it actually exists, is just another biological process. Because the imagined apple is not a real apple, means it can have no application in the real world as anything. Now watch, this becomes abundantly clear in the area of imagined morality. Because imaginations are not the reall thing, there can exist nothing actually described as morality

Morality, simply become an imagined thing, as we witness biological processes. Morality can have no actual existence, because it does not exist to begin with, subjective or objective, in a meaninless purposeless universe

You don't actually imagine an apple, that's simply the name you gave it. You are using your imagination to percieve a biological process described as an apple. There is no thing actually as an apple and it is not a good or bad thing, as that biological process

Now the application. If I witness someone hit someone else, I can choose to call this good or bad, moral or immoral, but that doesn't mean those things exist. I'm just witnessing a biological process

Hence imagining a morality by witnessing a physical process, is not an actual morality. Hence it is not possible for Atheists to have a morality. And if they can't have one,, then it is a foregone conclusion they cannot explain one

Rabbits are smarter than worms and the smarter something is the harder it is to justify killing it.

You can't believe how hard I laughed when I read your above statement. So it would be ok to kill, mentally retarded people? I don't think you would believe that. Or that it would be ok for me to kill you, because I'm clearly more intelligent than you?

There is no such thing as an absolute truth except for this statement.

So no, my statement about subjective morality is not absolutely true, but it is a truth nonetheless.

Oh my goodness you should go on the comedy circuit. Another belly laugh. Reminds me of the guy that said, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

Of course there's absolute truth. It's absolutely true that things exist. It's absolutley true that there are only three logical possibilities as to how things exists. It's absolutely true that there are only certain things that reality will allow, etc, etc, etc

And if a cow eats grass then it's helpful to the cow but hurtful to the grass.

So as I demonstrated earlier, your just making up a word or words, like morality in the form of harmful and hurtful that have no reality because your just describing with your imagination biological processes, nothing more nothing less. Your morality is imagine, it doesn't exist.

Do you think cows are immoral? Do you think it is immoral to eat meat?

Well no of course I was looking at this alleged morality from your system, not mine

No, I am often capable of determining if my actions are helpful or hurtful to another being.

Right that's the whole point, its from your perspective. What is helpful to you is not to someone else. One tree falls on Tuesday in a forest another falls on Wednesday in another forest. It's only from your perspective that it has meaning, is hurtful or helpful. Got to think outside yourself when trying to think rationally and in a critical fashion.

Right. Your rationalizing your relative subjective behavior to make it have meaning and call it morality. I believe this is what the Nazis did, correct. Exterminate the weak and those with physical problems, because they hurt the master race.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2017 2:21 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2017 7:15 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 281 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 7:18 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2017 10:08 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1800
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 280 of 1004 (800124)
02-20-2017 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:56 AM


Re: How?
DB writes:

The imagination, even if it actually exists, is just another biological process. Because the imagined apple is not a real apple, means it can have no application in the real world as anything.

Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. Apples exist. They are not imaginary.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:56 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 7:46 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29433
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 281 of 1004 (800125)
02-20-2017 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:56 AM


Re: How?
DB writes:

Right. Your rationalizing your relative subjective behavior to make it have meaning and call it morality. I believe this is what the Nazis did, correct. Exterminate the weak and those with physical problems, because they hurt the master race.

And because it was their Christian Duty.

But it's really good that you brought this up because it more than adequately explains morality.

Morality is a human construct that is societal in nature. It exists only with the general consensus of a population. The Nazis had one set of moral codes. Other nations had different moral codes (though not very different). For example, the US provided a great example of how to commit genocide efficiently with how it treated Native Americans and even at the time of the rise of the Nazis there was great support for the idea of removing Jewish Influence here in the US. I'm sure you are aware of the MS ST. Louis incident, the Voyage of the Damned. It was certainly not one of those unreported news stories.

Morality is a social contract and as such just like humans, evolves.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:56 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 7:52 AM jar has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 282 of 1004 (800126)
02-20-2017 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Pressie
02-20-2017 7:15 AM


Re: How?
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. Apples exist. They are not imaginary.

Actually read what I said. I said your imagination of the apple is not a real apple. There is not actually an apple in reality, that's what you call it.. It is actually another biological thing.

Hence for your imagination of morality to exist in reality, it would need to be more than me just slapping you in the face. That all just stuff happening, a biological connection of my hand to your face. Your imagination, gives it a description as morality.

Just like your imagination of the apple is not an apple. Your imagination of me slapping you even in anger, is not morality. Making up a name as morality, does not make biological processes moral or immoral. Not even subjectively

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2017 7:15 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 283 of 1004 (800127)
02-20-2017 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by jar
02-20-2017 7:18 AM


Re: How?
And because it was their Christian Duty.

But it's really good that you brought this up because it more than adequately explains morality.

Morality is a human construct that is societal in nature. It exists only with the general consensus of a population. The Nazis had one set of moral codes. Other nations had different moral codes (though not very different). For example, the US provided a great example of how to commit genocide efficiently with how it treated Native Americans and even at the time of the rise of the Nazis there was great support for the idea of removing Jewish Influence here in the US. I'm sure you are aware of the MS ST. Louis incident, the Voyage of the Damned. It was certainly not one of those unreported news stories.

Morality is a social contract and as such just like humans, evolves.

Right it's an evolving biological process with no meaning or purpose in reality. Reality won't allow it. But if you want to IMAGINE it you go right ahead. When death comes around, it won't care what you think, correct

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 7:18 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 8:08 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29433
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 284 of 1004 (800128)
02-20-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 7:52 AM


Why do you continue lying Dawn?
DB writes:

Right it's an evolving biological process with no meaning or purpose in reality. Reality won't allow it. But if you want to IMAGINE it you go right ahead. When death comes around, it won't care what you think, correct

That of course is not what I said or included in what you quoted. It is also a really stupid thing to say.

Of course morality has a purpose in reality, it is a set of rules and guidelines a society uses. It's not anymore a biological process than any other set of rules or guidelines. And what the hell does "When death comes around, it won't care what you think, correct" have to do with the topic?

Are you really totally unable to hold a reasonable conversation with at least a small attempt to address the topic?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 7:52 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:17 AM jar has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5100
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 285 of 1004 (800138)
02-20-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2017 6:48 AM


DB writes:

Ok I'll play along, which part of his behavior could be characterized as immoral. Show me the action in his actions

quote:
At the age of 40 his personality changes, he starts developing overt and inappropriate sexual tendancies. He starts looking at child porn. He gets kicked out by his wife for making sexual advances to young girls. He is finally prosecuted for a sex offence and put on the sex offender's register.

He also starts getting bad headaches and when he finally turns up at a hospital, they find an enormous tumour on his prefrontal cortex. They remove the tumour and his paedophilia is cured.

A couple of years later he starts having sexual problems again, he checks in to hospital, they find that the tumour has returned. They remove it, it cures the paedophilia. He's currently fine.


The hallucinations of a psychopath, are these actually real. Sense there is brain change, how do his alleged brain changes become immoral? How did you decide this

It's his behaviour that is real and that we call immoral, his brain state changes are seen on fMRI scans.

In your system of so called morality, literally ever person could have different perspective on any given point. Meaning the whole system itself becomes utter nonsesne.

Every person DOES have a different perspective on morality. That's why we're all saying it. Over and over. It also changes between cultures and over time. We absolutely know this.

The Nazis were either moral or immoral. If everyone gets a choice as to whether they were, yoursystem becomes nonsense. So would you tell me, we're the Nazis moral or immoral. What made thier actions immoral, if thier society thought it was perfectly acceptable.

You need to be specific. Were the Nazi's immoral when the created the holocaust? Yes, of course. In my subjective view - and in the vast majority of everyone else's view too. But not, it seems in Hitler's view.

Evolution changes from one state to another, time period to time period, that does not mean that it is moral or immoral. If your imaginations from a biological brain change from one time period, or people do things differently from generation to generation, this does not make it moral or immoral.

What's moral is what we decide as a society is moral at any point in time. It's developmental. Societies like individuals grow up and change. That's why we don't torture people anymore or keep slaves or make human sacrifices.

You still haven't excapted from your initial problem demonstrating it's more than some biological process. Why won't you provide an argument that shows that your imaginations are greater than, the entire process called existent, which is blind and without purpose. Death doesn't care about your so called morality. The only way from morality to exist is to have a absolute standard and something outside our imaginations, greater than those.

I'm afraid you've lapsed back into obscurity again. Morality IS a biological process. It's a brain state and an emotion like anger or love. It's called empathy and it's moderated by group learning. We learn how to behave morally from our parents and from society that's why it changes over time and across societies.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2017 6:48 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2017 5:19 AM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
67NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017