Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 106 of 438 (504987)
04-06-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Cedre
04-06-2009 7:14 AM


Re: Some freindly advice
quote:
Morality/altruism has been defined on this thread so far as anything put forward by a group, usually a society, the society provides a guide for the behavior of the people in that group or society. In this sense morality might allow slavery, discrimination, lying and so on.
Morality and altruism are not interchangeable terms. But yes, some people consider moral what others consider abhorrent.
quote:
Now morality was also defined as actions performed by organisms be it human or other organism that benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself.
No, that's altruism. Just to recap my actual argument, altruistic animal behaviours are the seed from which our morality evolved.
quote:
This is the proposed definition of morality on this thread, by those who are against a normative view of morality, that is against the view that the knowledge of good and evil are universal and fixed.
Don't you think that it is a bit arrogant to assume that your concept of morality is the normative one? I find it rather presumptuous. What data are you basing this on?
quote:
If morality is determined by a society or by a majority vote then we may end up having moralities that benefit a few at the expense of many. Take the Nazi Germany as an example,
Ah, Godwin's Law Cedre. You lose.
quote:
Hitler most likely believed that the existence of the Jews was immoral, that they should be wiped out. And he infected the greater part of Germany with this wicked mindset, until it became moral to annihilate all the Jews.
And thus you disprove your claim that morality is fixed and universal.
quote:
Now answer me how is killing 6 million Jewish people beneficial towards the survival of our species.
It isn't, nor need it be. The ToE does not demand that every single human action ever taken benefit the survival of the species. That is a straw-man that you concocted.
quote:
So the conclusion is morality cannot be decided by a society because it may be detrimental to the human race
Then how do you account for the undoubted fact that different societies have different moralities?
quote:
and if it is decided by a society then it would not have come about by evolution because it has the potential to defy the principles of evolution by endangering the very gene which it is suppose to protect.
The ability to defy our evolutionary roots is an emergent property of the complex human brain. This capacity has itself evolved. There is no contradiction here for the ToE. You are clutching at straws.
quote:
Morality has also been defined as any action or behavior that will not harm others or produce the best overall results in terms of survival
Not by me it hasn't.
quote:
How can you resolve this conflicting ideas.
There is no conflict. I suggest that you quit trying to pick holes in a subject of which you have no knowledge and instead, go out and read a book on the subject. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you might find these problems resolve themselves. Try reading The Selfish Gene, as I suggested to you a hundred posts ago.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Cedre, posted 04-06-2009 7:14 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22951
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 107 of 438 (504990)
04-06-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Cedre
04-06-2009 7:14 AM


Re: Some freindly advice
Cedre writes:
This is the proposed definition of morality on this thread, by those who are against a normative view of morality, that is against the view that the knowledge of good and evil are universal and fixed.
Good and evil are not scientific concepts. We're not arguing against "a normative view of morality," whatever that is. We're arguing that morality based upon good and evil is not scientific. That's why science uses the term altruism. Altruism and morality are not synonyms.
You argue in your Hitler example that annihilating Jews became moral whereas before it was not, but scientists study reality, and the nature of reality is not a function of what people think. That morality is fluid is your clue that it isn't a scientific concept, that it is subjective, different from one person or culture to the next.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Cedre, posted 04-06-2009 7:14 AM Cedre has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 108 of 438 (505042)
04-06-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Cedre
04-06-2009 7:14 AM


Re: Some freindly advice
I almost think that you might actually be starting to approach the verge of understanding. You still don't understand what we're telling you, but you are at least beginning to see that what you misunderstand that to be is wrong. That's not much of a start, but it's a start nonetheless.
Mind you, I was away for a few days and haven't had time to completely review what has transpired in the meantime. But still I see a pattern in your posts in that you keep ignoring a key criterion for the setting of what is moral or immoral in a society: does it work?
I know that I have told you more than once that every immoral act has an effect, bears a consequence, that affects others and yourself. As does every moral act. I also know that I have told you that while people could make arbitrary decisions about what's right or wrong, it's still actually the consequences of implementing those arbitrary decisions that will make the final decision. And that it is almost impossible for people to accurately figure out in advance what the consequences of those decisions will be. You ignored that and as a consequence keep concocting these outrageous scenarios.
It's somewhat analogous to how evolution works by natural selection. An organism's genome is used during its development from a zygote (a fertilized egg) to produce that organism and thereafter for that organism to function. There are virtually unlimited numbers of changes that could be made to that genome which will produce vast numbers of different organisms, some vastly different from the one you had started out with. But will those new creatures work? If we were to use genetic engineering to go in and arbitrarily set the genetic code of an zygote, would it work? Would it produce a viable organism that will be more fit?
Well, that's just it, isn't it? We can arbitrarily decide what it will become, but how fit it is is completely out of our hands. It's the environment that will decide that! We may be able to cook a pudding, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, now isn't it? You could go into the kitchen and mix together whatever ingredients you want to and cook it in whatever manner you choose at whatever temperature and for however long you arbitrarily choose. But will anybody be able to eat it? You can arbitrarily choose how it's made, but not over whether anyone would actually eat it (in this case, unless you actually do know how to cook and had properly applied that knowledge).
In evolution, organism produce offspring that are very similar to their parents, but a bit different. Which ones will survive to produce offspring of their own? The environment "decides" that, in that the ones who are better able to survive and reproduce will be the ones whose genes continue on and spread into the following generations. Exactly what traits are more fit than others? Depends on the environment. Different environments select for different traits and it also happens that an environment that used to select of one trait changes so that it then starts to select for other traits.
This is basically how evolution by natural selection works: by reproduction followed by selection. If you leave out the effects of selection, then you're not talking about evolution.
In the case social animals, their fitness depends on the society, as I have already described to you. Their behavior within that society has an effect on how well the society functions. "Right" and "wrong" (AKA "morality") are relative to the society and to what kinds of behavior will benefit or harm the society's ability to function and to ensure the survival of its members. While members of that society might arbitrarily decide as a group what behavior they will adopt, they have no say over whether those behaviors are "right" or "wrong", but rather it is the environment within the society and within which the society must function that will decide that. We may be able to arbitrarily decide upon certain conduct, but we have no control over the consequences of that conduct. And it is the consequences that decide right from wrong.
Following the evolution analogy, people need to be able to function as a society and to stay together in that society and they need to benefit from that. They have to work together, to take care of each other, to protect each other. Their behavior needs to support and promote the society's ability to function (including their ability to function within the society) and to provide for its members. Conduct which promotes that will be allowed to continue and might even be encouraged. Conduct that causes problems will be discouraged and members will try to seek solutions. If problem-causing conduct is allowed to continue, the very survival of the group could be in danger. Over time, the society will have learned what works for them and what doesn't work and that will be the established morality for that society.
Many times in the past and even in the present, people have designed the perfect society, a utopia. How many utopian societies do you know of that still exist after several generations? I can think of none. We cannot design a utopian society that will actually work. Rather, they grow. For example, an engineer I work with was a problem teenager, so he grew up on a boy's ranch. When he arrived, they only had four rules. By the time he left, they had 32 rules. Every time he did something stupid, they'd have to make a new rule that said, "Don't do that!"
Now, one of the effects of humans forming societies is that we started breeding ourselves, albeit unconsciously, into animals who fit into societies, just as we inadvertantly bred our livestock to have the temperament that suited us and our needs. Those people whose temperament enabled them to work together would stay with the group and contribute to the group's gene pool, whereas the loners would go off on their own and not contribute. People who wanted to be with other people and be part of a group (that's called being gregarious, which is a human trait) would do so and contribute to the gene pool. Those who were too adversarial and uncooperative would likely get themselves kicked out of the group or gotten rid of in some way, whereas those who could get along and cooperate would be allowed to stay and to contribute to the gene pool. And those who would learn and abide by the rules of the group, by its morality, would be able to stay while those could not or refused to would most likely be gotten rid of. Thus we bred ourselves to seek the company of others, to try to get along, and to learn how to behave properly within our society.
Another point is that what we see happening on a higher level is almost never the perspective of the individual on the ground. He's trying to keep himself alive and to provide for his family. Insofar as that depends on society, he will get along in society and to support society. If that society is endangered, then he will pitch in to protect it. Even it kills him, because that would be to protect his family and would hence ensure that his genes will make it into the following generations. Of course, he's not thinking in those exact terms, but the drive to protect his family is a strong one. And to protect his siblings and their families. And his cousins. Well, way back when these drives were becoming established in us, most likely nearly everybody in your tribe was related to you in some way; even nowadys in a lot of small towns in the American prairie most everybody in town is related to each other. That altruistic instinct evolved through kinship (sacrificing yourself for kin still ensures the propagation of your genes in future generations), but once it was established it could be extended to others who are not our literal kin, but with whom we feel some kind of kinship through social bonds.
Now:
If morality is determined by a society or by a majority vote then we may end up having moralities that benefit a few at the expense of many. Take the Nazi Germany as an example, Hitler most likely believed that the existence of the Jews was immoral, that they should be wiped out. And he infected the greater part of Germany with this wicked mindset, until it became moral to annihilate all the Jews.
As I've described, morality is determined by society, but not arbitrarily by its members. A society's members may arbitrarily decide on certain standards of conduct and certain goals for the society, but that does not guarantee that it will actually work, not does it guarantee what the consequences will be. What would the consequences of engaging in a determined campaign of genocide be on a society? In the case you cite, there's not just one society to consider, but all the other societies that interact with the Nazi German one -- kind of alike a large society of societies with its own rules of interaction and "moral" standards.
Now another thing that was also mentioned is that evolution is the survival of genes. Now answer me how is killing 6 million Jewish people beneficial towards the survival of our species. If in fact the whole world were to believe that the existence of the Jews, or let us take the black population, if society believed that the existence of the black population is immoral, and the moral thing to do is to wipe them out, how would this make sure that our species survive and proliferate.
Remember that an individual's concern will only be extended as far as the group that he belongs to. Usually that operates on a community level and on a national level. Unless an individual's perception of the group that he belongs to has expanded to include all of humanity, his concern will not really apply to those outside his group. So most societies operate out of concern for their own survival, not for the survival of other societies. That was most especially true during the vast portion of our history and of all of our prehistory (barring any far-ancient global communities of whom all trace has been wiped out).
Remember how short-sighted we are. We don't think in vast population and evolutionary terms, even though our actions contribute to the outcome of the entire population. Just as when we act altruistically we are not calculating the effects that this will have on the gene pool. We can observe and view the bigger picture, whereas the agents within that picture only see their own local situations and are reacting to and being motivated only on that level.
So a group committing genocide is not thinking in terms of how it will affect the survival of the entire human species. Except perhaps to ensure that their own genes are more prominantly represented. If anything, that group is only thinking of itself, since one of the requirements for such an act is to strongly consider the person you're slaughtering to not be one of you, to not even be human. A similar kind of conditioning is used on soldiers during a war, in which everyone is conditioned to not think of "the enemy" as even being human.
So the conclusion is morality cannot be decided by a society because it may be detrimental to the human race, and if it is decided by a society then it would not have come about by evolution because it has the potential to defy the principles of evolution by endangering the very gene which it is suppose to protect.
You really should try to learn something about evolution before you make such statements.
Morality is indeed determined by one's society without regard to the entire human species. It has happened throughout human prehistory and history and it continues to happen today. The only difference now is that global communications and our interconnected global economy have made us much more aware of the entire human species, such that we feel a kind of kinship for them. And with that feeling of kinship for all of humanity, the rest starts to follow.
And yet again please remember: the members or leadership of a society cannot determine morality. They can only determine standards of conduct after which it's the environment that determines whether or not that conduct works. The smart leaders and members will take what generations have shown does work and align their standards of conduct to that.
Morality has also been defined as any action or behavior that will not harm others or produce the best overall results in terms of survival, in this sense actions that would put others in harms way or hurt them would be considered to be immoral. But as I have shown above a behavior or action that is considered moral by a society in fact can do a lot of damage to others even members of the same society and what is more it benefits the one being moral or altruistic and not the one on the receivers end.
{sigh} Yet again please remember: the members or leadership of a society cannot determine morality. They can only determine standards of conduct after which it's the environment that determines whether or not that conduct works. The smart leaders and members will take what generations have shown does work and align their standards of conduct to that.
Our minister would tell the story of a congregation member who grew tired of hearing the same sermons over and over again, so he complained to the minister about it. The minister's response to why he kept telling the same sermons over and over again was because the congregation members hadn't learned them yet.
How many more times do we need to explain all this to you before you will start to learn?
But what about the second definition I give above pertaining to morality being an action or behavior that benefits the receiver and not the giver. How can you resolve this conflicting ideas.
Within a society, we give and we also receive. By our membership and participation in society, we both contribute and we benefit. What conflict is there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Cedre, posted 04-06-2009 7:14 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Cedre, posted 04-07-2009 5:43 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 109 of 438 (505069)
04-07-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by dwise1
04-06-2009 9:00 PM


Re: Some freindly advice
I know that I have told you more than once that every immoral act has an effect, bears a consequence, that affects others and yourself. As does every moral act.
I agree.
I also know that I have told you that while people could make arbitrary decisions about what's right or wrong, it's still actually the consequences of implementing those arbitrary decisions that will make the final decision. And that it is almost impossible for people to accurately figure out in advance what the consequences of those decisions will be.
Mmmwhy am I developing Goosebumps about this one? Let’s see if I throw a glass against a wall are you saying that I won’t be able to tell what the result will be until I actually see the result? Or a better example might be if I kill someone won’t I be able to tell that this is an immoral act until I’m arrested and thrown into jail for manslaughter? If I thumb someone in the face until I see this person’s tears will I not know that what I have done is wrong? In fact I thumbed that person in the first place to hurt him/her. You indirectly imply with the above that human beings lack foresight or foreknowledge. But of course humans have foresight fortunately that is why they make many good decisions.
Let’s take the example of the slave trade, before the slave traders started trading slaves of course they knew that forcibly removing people from their lands and putting them to work in grain fields for long hours on low wages would separate families destroy marriages cause great unhappiness for many. And also before slavery was stopped people had the foreknowledge that this would bring greater happiness to more people, restore families and marriages.
The truth is, even in normal day to day circumstances we don’t just make blind decisions so to speak but we sort of know what the consequences of our choices will be and we even expect certain things to come out of our moral choices. The bottom line is whatever we do we do with an intention, if I for example lie I do it with an intention to mislead, if I tell the truth again I had an intention for doing so, to lead in the right direction.
It's somewhat analogous to how evolution works by natural selection. An organism's genome is used during its development from a zygote (a fertilized egg) to produce that organism and thereafter for that organism to function. There are virtually unlimited numbers of changes that could be made to that genome which will produce vast numbers of different organisms, some vastly different from the one you had started out with.
What is evolution by natural selection analogous to? I hope you’re not trying to homogenize it with making moral choices because unlike natural selection that lacks reasoning power and the power to foresee humans have these faculties at their disposal. This is as far as I understood your paragraph you might want to clarify the rest.
Well, that's just it, isn't it? We can arbitrarily decide what it will become, but how fit it is is completely out of our hands. It's the environment that will decide that! We may be able to cook a pudding, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, now isn't it? You could go into the kitchen and mix together whatever ingredients you want to and cook it in whatever manner you choose at whatever temperature and for however long you arbitrarily choose. But will anybody be able to eat it? You can arbitrarily choose how it's made, but not over whether anyone would actually eat it (in this case, unless you actually do know how to cook and had properly applied that knowledge).
In evolution, organism produce offspring that are very similar to their parents, but a bit different. Which ones will survive to produce offspring of their own? The environment "decides" that, in that the ones who are better able to survive and reproduce will be the ones whose genes continue on and spread into the following generations. Exactly what traits are more fit than others? Depends on the environment. Different environments select for different traits and it also happens that an environment that used to select of one trait changes so that it then starts to select for other traits.
This is basically how evolution by natural selection works: by reproduction followed by selection. If you leave out the effects of selection, then you're not talking about evolution.
I don’t see how all of this affects our discussion about morality.
We may be able to arbitrarily decide upon certain conduct, but we have no control over the consequences of that conduct. And it is the consequences that decide right from wrong.
I agree with the first part, but I will not agree with the second part. Whatever doesn’t hurt others is right; this is the definition that has had the greatest publicity on this thread. So now let us assume that you find your seven year old kid smoking pot, and you are against his smoking pot so you reprimand him and he cries; you have hurt him. Should we then conclude that because your kid ended up crying (this was the consequence of you reprimanding your kid) that it is bad to reprimand your kid. Another way of looking at this is, according to your kid smoking pot has good consequences as it makes him feel good and better both mentally and physically, so is it right for your kid to smoke pot because the consequences are appealing.
Or we could even go back to the slave trade. Slavery has had many good consequences for the societies that promoted it. Cheap/free labor should be good, it saves on resources and you don’t have to perform the backbreaking tasks yourself, who knows of all the other benefits slave traders reaped from owning and selling slaves . My point is slavery had many good consequences for the societies who promoted it. Shall we honestly conclude that because of this it was good and even moral to own slaves? The ends do not justify the means.
Over time, the society will have learned what works for them and what doesn't work and that will be the established morality for that society.
This isn’t true you don’t have to lie many times to know that what your doing is wrong, that it hurts others and that it will ultimately get you into a big mess if you’re caught.
If that society is endangered, then he will pitch in to protect it. Even it kills him, because that would be to protect his family and would hence ensure that his genes will make it into the following generations. Of course, he's not thinking in those exact terms, but the drive to protect his family is a strong one.
This is just not true; if it were true then everyone would be signing up for the army in times of danger. Certain people are just cowards and they will abandon their family in dangerous times, and some people are brave and will stand by their family. Humans are diverse you cannot stereotype us
As I've described, morality is determined by society, but not arbitrarily by its members.
But its members can also determine morality, if we consider many of the killer cults and sects that have existed, the regimes and totalitarian governments that have existed we can easily see this truth. The pages of history are full of instances where members of society decided for the entire population what is moral and what isn’t.
A society's members may arbitrarily decide on certain standards of conduct and certain goals for the society, but that does not guarantee that it will actually work, not does it guarantee what the consequences will be.
O yes it does, because as I have already shown above we don’t make decisions without intentions or expectations, we have a list expectations that our decisions should achieve otherwise we won’t make any decisions, we decide in accordance with our expectations. Therefore we can be sure of exactly what our actions will produce if I lie to you you will be deceived this is what I intended and it’s what I got.
Remember that an individual's concern will only be extended as far as the group that he belongs to.
Another unfounded statement. Why do global politics exist? Why does the UN or the EU exist? Answer is because we care what the rest of humanity is doing, we can’t help but to care and if they do something that is not in tune with what we consider to be right or moral we are pressed to intervene.
That was most especially true during the vast portion of our history and of all of our prehistory (barring any far-ancient global communities of whom all trace has been wiped out).
How do you explain the world wars, and all of the bloodshed that has been wrought throughout history between nations, ethnic groups etc? Because our ideas of morality eventually infringe on others ideas of morality.
Remember how short-sighted we are. We don't think in vast population and evolutionary terms, even though our actions contribute to the outcome of the entire population. Just as when we act altruistically we are not calculating the effects that this will have on the gene pool. We can observe and view the bigger picture, whereas the agents within that picture only see their own local situations and are reacting to and being motivated only on that level.
Guesswork
So a group committing genocide is not thinking in terms of how it will affect the survival of the entire human species. Except perhaps to ensure that their own genes are more prominantly represented. If anything, that group is only thinking of itself, since one of the requirements for such an act is to strongly consider the person you're slaughtering to not be one of you, to not even be human. A similar kind of conditioning is used on soldiers during a war, in which everyone is conditioned to not think of "the enemy" as even being human.
These are the dangers of assuming that morality is subjective, everyone will come up with his or her own definitions of what is good and what is bad, but if we all hold to a single definition a universal norm of what is right and wrong, much of the bloodshed that nations experience will be done away with. If we can all view every human life to be worthy and priceless, a great deal of suffering in the world would be cancelled out.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2009 9:00 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by SammyJean, posted 04-07-2009 8:58 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 04-07-2009 10:08 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2953 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 110 of 438 (505085)
04-07-2009 10:40 AM


Paper on Game Theory
I thought I should point this out. It just came up in the news today at ScienceDaily.
This paper is a study on "game theory," which basically describes organisms' behavior as gambling: organisms cooperate when it has a high chance of benefiting them, and they cheet when it has a high chance of benfiting them.
These scientists showed how a yeast gains an evolutionary advantage by producing a good for the entire yeast population, even when all the rest of the population is simply mooching, creating a burden for the one "altruistic" yeast there.
In this scenario, the "cooperative" aspect of the yeast's behavior is actually just a side-effect of its own best interests (it produces sugar for itself, but can only use a small portion of the sugar itself, leaving the rest freely available for the population). So, this fits with my "bees and flowers" example, where the benefit to other organisms is more coincidental than planned.
But, these scientists also showed that the equilibrium state in a population of social organisms will always contain both cooperators and cheaters.
I thought the timing was quite ironic.
Edited by Bluejay, : space before the URL

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 4328 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 111 of 438 (505122)
04-07-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cedre
04-07-2009 5:43 AM


Re: Some freindly advice
Cedre writes:
These are the dangers of assuming that morality is subjective, everyone will come up with his or her own definitions of what is good and what is bad, but if we all hold to a single definition a universal norm of what is right and wrong, much of the bloodshed that nations experience will be done away with. If we can all view every human life to be worthy and priceless, a great deal of suffering in the world would be cancelled out.
On this very last sentence and the last sentence alone, I agree with you. It's only if we see all human life as worthy and priceless that we can stop hurting others. In this morality must remain subjective! We all need to start thinking of each other as members of one race, the human race. It's not until we start to seeing things from someone else's point of view and experience a little empathy and sympathy that this will happen. We don't need to follow the rules out of some book we only need to use what comes naturally to us, our ability to empathize. But I know that you are of the mind set that you believe only religion can bring this about, in particular Christianity. Which will never happen because much of the bloodshed that the nations experience has been done in the name of God and the god of the bible in particular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cedre, posted 04-07-2009 5:43 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Cedre, posted 04-08-2009 4:26 AM SammyJean has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4971 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 112 of 438 (505125)
04-07-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cedre
04-07-2009 5:43 AM


All Well and Good
but if we all hold to a single definition a universal norm of what is right and wrong, much of the bloodshed that nations experience will be done away with.
That's fine then, stop holding out and accept my definition as the universal norm. Or do you intend to force me to accept yours?

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cedre, posted 04-07-2009 5:43 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 113 of 438 (505138)
04-08-2009 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by SammyJean
04-07-2009 8:58 PM


Re: Human life and worth
Now note Sammyjean you want the law without acknowledging the lawmaker or law giver, it’s not going to happen my dear. Human beings can only be priceless if deemed to be created in the image of a God, as it is only God who can give them worth, otherwise they are but like I have said masses of chemicals whose worth is determined by the society they were born in or currently dwell in, and not by an absolute being who has established from the zero our of life that human life should be priceless.
However if humans are merely the product of millions of years of evolution and physical and chemical change why should they be regarded as being more special than the other animals that inhabit this earth? If we are just atoms come together then we really don’t have worth other than the worth that we ascribe to ourselves. This is what relativists are preaching, society defines what the worth of human beings is, you decide what that worth is. That is why the humanity of fetuses has been long ripped from them and society has ascertained that they are but blobs of tissue not human beings, resulting in 35,316,203 deaths from 1973-1996. But aren't we (adults)also just atomic structures aren't we also just aggregates of different chemicals, we also have no worth in that case.
If society decides what is morally wrong and morally right as far as morality relates to humanity, then we can arrive at the following conclusions:
1. Human life has no inherent value or worth other than the value society ascribes it. That is why it wasn’t really difficult for slave owners to establish that blacks were less valuable than whites or for the Boers of the apartheid regime to conclude that black South Africans were simply slightly evolved monkeys and kaffirs (slave/servant). And it is also why Hitler could conclude that Jews were fully ape and that blacks were mostly ape.
2. It isn’t wrong to hurt other human beings physically or emotionally. This is the reason that slavery existed that apartheid went down and especially that the holocaust happened, The Jews were determined to be just animals and hey since we witness animals perish in the wild almost daily then the Jews might as well just die like their fellow animals. People aren’t too concerned with the welfare of animals anyway.
3. Human beings have no meaning/purpose in life. Only created things can have a meaning or a purpose. Nature can never grant or create inherent purpose.
Conclusion
Humans do not have any value, because what is considered to be moral regarding humans in one part of the world will not be regarded in another part. In other words the moralities negate each other or work against each other, thus humanity has no worth. Therefore it isn’t inherently wrong to inflict pain upon humans, and to respect human life. The only time that Humanity can have any worth is when we have been created by God who has endowed us with worth and value.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by SammyJean, posted 04-07-2009 8:58 PM SammyJean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 04-08-2009 8:28 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 115 by SammyJean, posted 04-08-2009 11:55 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 04-08-2009 12:02 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 117 by Granny Magda, posted 04-08-2009 2:49 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 04-08-2009 3:57 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 119 by SammyJean, posted 04-08-2009 5:57 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22951
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 114 of 438 (505156)
04-08-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cedre
04-08-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Human life and worth
You're making religious arguments in a science thread. Should we therefore conclude that your objections to an evolutionary origin for altruism are religious?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cedre, posted 04-08-2009 4:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 4328 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 115 of 438 (505170)
04-08-2009 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cedre
04-08-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Human life and worth
Cedre,
You do realize that religion has been at the heart of much bloodshed through the history of humanity? It obviously isn't working!
Do you believe that by forcing your book of bronze age laws down everyone's throat your going to stop all this bloodshed? Who's idea of god do you think is going to save humanity? Your Christian god, the god of Islam, one of the Hindu gods? Trust me, every one thinks that their religion is the right religion and they're willing to kill to keep it. Humanity has been there and done that already. Wake up!!! You have to be an idiot not to realize that religion allows us to kill! It gives us justification for cold blooded murder.
Edited by SammyJean, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cedre, posted 04-08-2009 4:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3493 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 116 of 438 (505172)
04-08-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cedre
04-08-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Human life and worth
Now note Sammyjean you want the law without acknowledging the lawmaker or law giver.
No, Sammyjean just doesn't accept the same lawmaker as you do. I accept the lawmaker as all of us, not some mystical being in the sky who only thinks his special tribe is worth anything, and anyone who disagrees with how he runs things is not worth anything.
However if humans are merely the product of millions of years of evolution and physical and chemical change why should they be regarded as being more special than the other animals that inhabit this earth?
Why do you think they should be? All life is special, and precious, and just as fleeting and tenuous as human life is. One could argue that we're special because of our unique ability to understand, and our ability to control large swathes of the planet through agriculture and construction. But that just makes us stewards of life, and again, makes us no less worthy of preservation than any other life form.
Human life has no inherent value or worth other than the value society ascribes it.
That's exactly right. What gives anything worth? The society or individual who is beholding it. To one person a scuffed up, torn dirty teddy bear is the most precious thing oin the world, to another person, it's a bit of trash that should have been thrown out years ago. Worth is not an inherent attribute of anything, worth is given to something on an individual basis. The usual reason we have for granting more worth on one thing over another is rarity, and one could argue that an individual is the rarest thing of all and is thus worth the most.
I don't need anyone else to tell me my life has worth, that's something I give it myself, and because I can empathise with others, I grant them the same worth as I grant myself. I see them as kin, as equals. If I didn't view them as such, I would probably grant them less worth than I grant myself. Everyone does this, even you.
That is why it wasn’t really difficult for slave owners to establish that blacks were less valuable than whites or for the Boers of the apartheid regime to conclude that black South Africans were simply slightly evolved monkeys and kaffirs (slave/servant). And it is also why Hitler could conclude that Jews were fully ape and that blacks were mostly ape.
You're exactly right, that's why people were able to do those things, and the people who did them considered what they did to be morally right. We have a different definition of morally right, and by default, I think my morality is better than theirs, but if you'll notice, the way people can decide that is by convincing themselves that the people they're subjugating aren't really people. So the question comes down to how you define a "person" not how you define morality.
Human beings have no meaning/purpose in life. Only created things can have a meaning or a purpose. Nature can never grant or create inherent purpose.
People have no inherent meaning or purpose in life. That's the way it is and railing against it won't make it any less true. The only meaning we have in life is what meaning we give it, so make sure to give yourself a good reason to live, a good meaning for your life, and then strive to reach your purpose.
Humans do not have any value, because what is considered to be moral regarding humans in one part of the world will not be regarded in another part. In other words the moralities negate each other or work against each other, thus humanity has no worth. Therefore it isn’t inherently wrong to inflict pain upon humans, and to respect human life. The only time that Humanity can have any worth is when we have been created by God who has endowed us with worth and value.
Moralities do not negate each other. If I like apples but loathe oranges, and my friend like oranges but loathes apples, do those two conflicting views negate each other? No, they just don't apply beyond the person making the subjective observation. That's the whole point of saying morality is subjective, it only applies to the person. When that person tries to live in a society, his morality is still different, everyone on this board will have a slightly different take on what they consider moral, but we all conform on enough points to make all the different moralities coexist peacefully. When one person's morality is in great conflict, that person is either left out of the society, or taken out of the society by force, either through incarceration or death.
The fact that you see yourself as worthless without someone else to give you a meaning speaks more about who you are than about what humanity is. I give myself meaning, I would hope you could do that for yourself as well.
Edited by Perdition, : Spelling, it's important. ;-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cedre, posted 04-08-2009 4:26 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Cedre, posted 04-09-2009 4:44 AM Perdition has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 117 of 438 (505183)
04-08-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cedre
04-08-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Human life and worth
quote:
Now note Sammyjean you want the law without acknowledging the lawmaker or law giver, it’s not going to happen my dear.
Cut the patronising crap Cedre.
Not believing in objective and immutable "laws" of morality which exist outside of human thought removes the need for your "lawmaker". If you want to talk religion start a faith thread.
quote:
Human beings can only be priceless if deemed to be created in the image of a God, as it is only God who can give them worth, otherwise they are but like I have said masses of chemicals whose worth is determined by the society they were born in or currently dwell in, and not by an absolute being who has established from the zero our of life that human life should be priceless.
This in no way follows. You say that humans beings have no worth without your god. Then you say that their worth is determined by their society. Worth determined by society is still worth. Does the presence of so glaring a contradiction in your argument not bother you?
quote:
However if humans are merely the product of millions of years of evolution and physical and chemical change why should they be regarded as being more special than the other animals that inhabit this earth?
Have you read Of Mice and Men? Do you think a mouse wrote it? Or a man? Humans are the only animals who can create such things, just as we are the only animals who can consciously refine and systematise sophisticated ethical systems.
If you really think that a few dusty bronze age myths are all that elevate you above a rodent, I feel sorry for you. Even i would not be so harsh on you.
quote:
If we are just atoms come together then we really don’t have worth other than the worth that we ascribe to ourselves.
Not quite, but close. We have the worth that we ascribe to ourselves and each other. This sense of worth is what has inspired such things as universal declarations of human rights. That these conventions are artificial does not subtract from them at all.
quote:
This is what relativists are preaching
Except for the fact that you are the only person on this thread to present such an argument. Does this not tip you off that you are constructing a straw-man? Everyone else seems aware of it.
quote:
That is why the humanity of fetuses...
If you want to talk about abortion, start an abortion thread. Otherwise, quit trying to divert others from the argument by the constant use of distracting examples.
quote:
1. Human life has no inherent value or worth other than the value society ascribes it.
Absolutely right. Then of course, you seize upon the worst examples of immoral behaviour. You fail to mention that the same societal worth has inspired people to dedicate their lives to helping others, to volunteer their time for charity, to give blood or to create rules and laws that benefit everyone.
The alternative is your religious perspective. Unfortunately, that has not done too well either. The countless schisms, pogroms and holy wars attest to that. Any system of ethics will have its flaws and its benefits. Your version has done no better than the humanist ethics you mis-characterise in your attempts to criticise them. In fact, if I am correct, and your god is little more than an ugly myth, your ethical system is just as artificial as anyone else's.
quote:
2. It isn’t wrong to hurt other human beings physically or emotionally.
Even a chimp can work out that this is nonsense. It's all or nothing with you fundamentalist guys, isn't it? Either your specific version of Christianity is true, or you throw all your toys out of the pram.
It is wrong to hurt others because it has been determined that it is wrong, both philosophically and empirically. Hurting others makes for a worse society. It is as simple as that. Do you really imagine that before Judaism/Christianity came along, people thought that hurting each other was a good thing?
It is also worth noting that you have shown willingness to hurt the feelings of others for absolutely no reason and with no provocation. You are extremely ill-placed to claim the moral high ground.
quote:
3. Human beings have no meaning/purpose in life.
No intrinsic purpose, no. You have to find your own purpose. Is that so hard to grasp?
quote:
The only time that Humanity can have any worth is when we have been created by God who has endowed us with worth and value.
If you want to witness, take it to a faith thread.
You have failed to mention your own topic even once. I take it from this, and your failure to reply to my previous messages, that you are unable to present a rebuttal and that you are ceding the debate. Retreating into Christian apologetics instead of debating the subject you brought up, looks like an admission of defeat to me.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cedre, posted 04-08-2009 4:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22951
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 118 of 438 (505184)
04-08-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cedre
04-08-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Human life and worth
Hi Cedre,
It looks like you're pretty much out of ammo from a scientific standpoint, so since that leaves your thread in dire straights topic-wise I suppose it wouldn't increase the damage much if I raised the rhetorical question of how you explain the fact that atheists hold human life just as precious as religious people.
One might even argue that atheists place an even higher value on human life, since it's the religious who are always all hot to go off and defend democracy by bombing [fill in name of most recent country to have caused us offense] back to the stone age.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cedre, posted 04-08-2009 4:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 4328 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 119 of 438 (505194)
04-08-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cedre
04-08-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Human life and worth
Now that I have a little more time to answer you in more detail, I will.
quote:
Now note Sammyjean you want the law without acknowledging the lawmaker or law giver, it’s not going to happen my dear.
Who say I wanted "the law." I never said law, that's you! I said we humans need to use our innate ability to empathize. You do know what empathy is don't you? When you don't experience true empathy you're considered a psychopath. Something tells me you don't experience empathy and that's why you, Cedre, need a book to use as a reference guild on how to behave and how to treat your fellow human beings.
quote:
Human beings can only be priceless if deemed to be created in the image of a God, as it is only God who can give them worth, otherwise they are but like I have said masses of chemicals whose worth is determined by the society they were born in or currently dwell in, and not by an absolute being who has established from the zero our of life that human life should be priceless.
Is that the only reason you find humans priceless? How Cedre, with all your 19 yrs of wisdom, could you explain that I believe that humans have equal worth without need of a god to give them worth? I believe all humans to be a mass of organize chemicals just as I believe myself to be, but I feel empathy and so do most people (well, maybe you don't.) I don't require an absolute being to establish the worth of my fellow humans for me. I've done a fine job establishing that for myself, Thank you!
quote:
However if humans are merely the product of millions of years of evolution and physical and chemical change why should they be regarded as being more special than the other animals that inhabit this earth?
Who said we are more special than the other animals???
quote:
1. Human life has no inherent value or worth other than the value society ascribes it. That is why it wasn’t really difficult for slave owners to establish that blacks were less valuable than whites or for the Boers of the apartheid regime to conclude that black South Africans were simply slightly evolved monkeys and kaffirs (slave/servant). And it is also why Hitler could conclude that Jews were fully ape and that blacks were mostly ape.
People with money and power have always found ways of soothing there conscience and made up excuses for doing things that are for the average person, unconscionable. Nothing new here! Why is it that slavery was abolished? It wasn't Christianity that free the slaves, it happened because there were finally enough people with enough power that had sympathy because they experience empathy, that the political tide was changed and slavery was abolished. Do you think that all of Germany hated Jews and that is why the holocaust happened? Hitler himself may have concluded that the Jews were less than human but he didn't have all of Germany convinced. Their where many Germans that were appalled by what was happening and may more that allowed it because they had been brain-washed into believing what their psychotic leader had been preaching, the reason being that they followed him because had the message that they wanted to hear at the right time.
quote:
People aren’t too concerned with the welfare of animals anyway.
Here we go again! I don't know how they treat animals in Namibia, but here in the USA as well as the rest of the western civilization we have a large number laws that protect the welfare of animals and we have a number of agencies set in place to enforce these laws, not to mention a number of organizations constantly fighting on behalf of animal welfare and animal rights! Why do you think that these people care so deeply about the way animals are treated? Empathy again, wow! People can even empathize with animals. Unlike the bible, that give man dominion over all the creatures of the earth, to use and abuse as we see fit!!! and abuse we sure have.
quote:
Human beings have no meaning/purpose in life. Only created things can have a meaning or a purpose. Nature can never grant or create inherent purpose.
Says you! I give myself and my fellow human beings meaning and purpose in life. Only created thing can have a meaning or a purpose? Yes, things created through the natural process of evolution do have meaning and purpose. Nature grants us the inherent opportunity to find our own purpose and meaning.
quote:
The only time that Humanity can have any worth is when we have been created by God who has endowed us with worth and value.
Once again, I don't believe in god, but I endow myself and my fellow humans with equal worth and value.
Edited by SammyJean, : No reason given.

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cedre, posted 04-08-2009 4:26 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2009 2:37 AM SammyJean has not replied
 Message 124 by ICANT, posted 04-11-2009 2:30 AM SammyJean has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 120 of 438 (505211)
04-09-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by SammyJean
04-08-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Human life and worth
How Cedre, with all your 19 yrs of wisdom, . . .
Wait a minute. Cedre is only 19 years old? No wonder he's so frakking clueless!
May I offer a from-memory a quote from the great American author Samuel Clemens, AKA "Mark Twain"?:
quote:
When I was 18 years old, I thought that my father was the stupidest man who had ever walked the earth. When I was 21, I was amazed how much the old man had learned in only three years.
Cedre, in a few years, you will come back to read our current postings and you will be amazed at how much we had learned in just a few years. Oh, wait! We had already known that a few years prior! Oh dear!
Oh frak it! Let me display my signature!

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by SammyJean, posted 04-08-2009 5:57 PM SammyJean has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024