Willing and Able but waiting for more information ...
If you have enough time to write other posts you have enough time to answer YES or NO, so that should mean only Unwilling to answer ...
Well I was actually giving you time to respond to my last extensive post to yourself, I was giving you the moral obligation to respond to the arguments I set out. ...
Ah, so you were willing and able to answer, but you were waiting for some additional information before doing so. Got it.
Your "last extensive post" did not present any new argument, just recycled old argument already refuted ad nauseum, so no, I will continue to ignore those old falsified arguments.
No I do not agree that morals are concepts, because concepts or imaginations do not have the ability to create something that does not already exist. ...
That's a "NO" then. It's wrong, but it's an answer, one that shows the extent that you will deny reality for the sake of your argument.
The square root of -1 ("i") is a concept of something that does not exist. There are many. The words you speak, read, hear and write are concepts that did not already exist before their invention out of thin air.
... Calling it a moral is just another way of describing imaginations. This of course is if we are talking about a purely naturalistic enviornment. ....
Indeed, calling it a moral is just a way of giving it a name that can then be used to discuss it, such as on these debate boards. Humans do this all the time with words, it's called language. Language varies around the world as different invented words are used to describe things so that we can communicate ideas, concepts and imaginations.
... Even if I did agree they were, they would be hopelessly lost in irrational inconsistency to qualify as any kind of standard to be described as morality.
Let me fix that for you:
... Even if I did agree they were, they would be hopelessly lost in irrational (subjective) inconsistency to qualify as any kind of (single absolute overall) standard to be described as (objective) morality.
See, as I've said before, you keep keep arguing that the subjective morals cannot be absolute morals. Everyone (else) agrees that they are subjective concepts. Of course subjective morals don't qualify as objective morals, that would be silly.
So now I have answered your second question, please go backwards and answer my previous post.
And yet I already have in my previous posts. What we are doing now is slowly moving down a path that shows those arguments are irrelevant distractions, distractions from the fact that morals are subjective and that they can be rationally explained.
(Message 196): Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
So let's try to take another step forward now ... we have a ways to go yet:
Do you now AGREE that moral concepts as described here are subjective? YES or NO, I'm going to waffle again
Re: Willing and Able but waiting for more information ...
Your "last extensive post" did not present any new argument, just recycled old argument already refuted ad nauseum, so no, I will continue to ignore those old falsified arguments.
Then it is obvious you are not willing to debate. Atleast Modulous is giving it a try, he is actually debating. Follow along there, then jump in as you see fit
Debate is not just repeating old arguments that have already been covered. In this case extensively. You would be debating if you actually dealt with the arguments I have put forward showing that ...
Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
If this true, then it would follow that the ability to reason would be apart of those memes, correct. So from a logical standpoint, it would follow that subjective morality, existing in a strictly Naturalistic enviornment, is a logical impossibility. ...
So I'll take that as a NO, I'm going to waffle again
Curiously you also claim
... So from a logical standpoint, it would follow that subjective morality, existing in a strictly Naturalistic enviornment, is a logical impossibility. Subjective realites, whatever they maybe, have no hope of existence, without objective realities. ...
and
Outside of your imagination, there is no such thing as a square root, muchless the square root of.......
That you don't see your second statement here contradicting your first statement is amusing. That's the kind of tangle you get into when you waffle.
Do you now AGREE that moral concepts as described here are subjective? YES or NO, I'm going to waffle again
That's like asking me if I agree that a tree is a tree. ...
So a subjective moral concept IS a subjective moral concept. Fascinating: you're going to both agree AND continue to waffle while pretending to disagree.
... You should have asked, do I agree that subjective moral concepts are a logical possibilty from an Atheistic standpoint. No
Except that I didn't ask that question because it is self-evidently true, as has been explained already. In detail.
Sure but only if they are actually predicated by an objective morality, otherwise they are a logical impossibilty. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
And there you go waffling again. You said
... For reasoning ability to exist, there needs to be outside your and myself objective realites, for reasoning to be capable. ...
If we take this as true for the sake of argument, then we have the observed documented objective reality that there are as many subjective morality variations as there are people.
You can't change "objective reality" in one premise to "objective morality" in the next and come to a valid conclusion: they are not equivalent or synonymous.
But I do like waffels. M mmmmmmm, waffels
Of course you do, it's a basic characteristic of all your arguments.
Next: do you AGREE that memes (non-genetic information passed from generation to generation) exist? YES or NO, I'm going to waffle again
...in fact the very idea of an idea is being rejected by Dawn.
Indeed, this is the hole he is digging to hide in rather than accept the reality of subjective morals. He seems to work his logic from conclusion backwards:
I suppose my original query relates to whether or not we can impose our modern human morality on prehistoric man?
Or even take it one step further and impose it on the animal kingdom in general.
Morals can only be "imposed" if the person\animal\etc can be forced to comply with our subjective moral view. Obviously this will not work retroactively.
So we can only say how we feel about those occurrences.
Looking at Mallard Ducks, the males will hold the females head underwater until she acquiesces to mating, but if the suitor is not big enough she will fight him off. This creates a feedback to produce males large enough to overpower the females. Is that a moral issue or just evolution?
So far, the only conclusion I can get from the creationist Christian side is:
If evolution/atheism is true, then morality is subjective. But so what?
[creationist-mode]
Because then it will be moral to rape, murder and eat children, that's what I (the creationist) would do ...
[/creationist-mode]
ie, if it is not written in stone then anything goes ...
... which ignores the fact that people live in groups that interact with other people, so they would likely kill you as soon as possible if you tried to do that - for self preservation.
Morals are behaviors that are considered good for the preservation of the group.
They are memes passed from one generation to the next.
They evolve with the times and changing social mores, so stoning becomes immoral and gay marriage becomes moral, because this reduces harm to the population.
Morals written in stone are not as forgiving, so we still see people stoned to death for perceived moral reasons, we still see racism and misogyny and other forms of bigotry being considered "moral" by the stone code.
Is it necessarily "...for the preservation of the group?"
Maybe morals are simply behaviours that are considered good.
(1) "considered good" by who? The individual or the group?
(2) when I look at the structure of morals it is about interactions with others: don't steal, don't murder, don't covet your neighbors spouse, ... let others pursue happiness if it harms no one .... etc
(3) who enforces morals, the individual or the group?
Can you think of a moral that is for personal benefit?
Can you think of a moral that is for personal benefit?
I will just pop in out of the blue (not having followed the thread) and say that they are all for personal benefit. We practice and enforce moral conduct because we realize that doing so is directly beneficial to ourselves. Being part of a group is essential to human survival and maintaining the group and one's relationship to it are paramount.
Enlightened self-interest. Agreed, benefiting the group benefits the members of the group.
All behaviour is driven by assessment of personal benefit.
You seem to have repeated yourself. Can you elaborate, please? Why is survival of the group important?
The survival of the group is important to the group because then it continues to exist as a group. The group evolved as a means to improve survival and reproduction for members of the group, so it is important for the group to have behaviors that promote cohesiveness in the group. These behaviors, instinctual or learned (memes), then are selected by their ability to improve the cohesiveness and productivity of the group.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
