Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without god
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 136 of 1221 (678541)
11-08-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Stile
11-08-2012 9:45 AM


Re: K.I.S.S.
I am all for keeping it simple but I think that the statements;
"Do unto others as you would be done by."
and
"Do unto others as they would be done by."
describe two entirely different things. A subtle difference but one that completely changes the frame of reference and thereby has long reaching consequences.
I think that the all around general success and longevity of the golden rule rests on the fact that it references the self. The only frame of reference that is universally possessed.
I also think that it does an excellent job of defining all the requirements of moral behaviour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Stile, posted 11-08-2012 9:45 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 137 of 1221 (678543)
11-08-2012 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by GDR
11-08-2012 2:06 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
If there is a great deal of evidence I'd like to see it.
I am referring to the evidence of natural history. All the evidence that we have that shows our lineage back to but not including our first spark.
I do not see any evidence for a prime mover that can not be identified as having been created by our natural tendency to imagine causes for things that we can not see. Again, this may be how a prime mover would choose to reveal himself but it looks like circular reasoning to me.
You are saying that I make the assumption that life came about by natural causes but natural causes are the only thing that I actually have evidence for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by GDR, posted 11-08-2012 2:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 11-09-2012 10:42 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 138 of 1221 (678560)
11-09-2012 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
11-08-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
12 ft chicken writes:
My fault for not understanding your opinion correctly. However, you are still adding an entity that has no evidence for it. Could there have been a super advanced race that came and gave us morality? Yes, but without evide nce leading us that way it is irrational to even suggest it. Could there have been a not perfect God that gave us morality? Yes, but with zero evidence why should we trust that? I am pretty sure this is the assumption you are beginning with (correct me if wrong) and I do not see any justification for starting with adding in an unevidenced entity or entities.
I am a theist. However in this discussion we are talking about either the theistic or deistic POV verses the atheistic POV. I see no justification for starting with the assumption that our intelligence and morality evolved from a non-intelligent, non-moral first cause. Just because we can observe human evolution through the fossil record and we can observe our moral evolution through the historical record, (including the Bible), does not mean that we can extrapolate that into evidence for a non-intelligent, non-moral first cause.
12ft chicken writes:
That is not all that these situations of altruism show us. We see the beginnings of a moral code within the social structures of animals and we see the willingness of individuals to help one another. The more of the group that is able to survive the better chance for the group to control territory, h ave individuals to mate with, and locate food to sustain the group. Working together is an advantageous behavior for social animals and basic morality is extremely helpful toward keeping the group whole.
Many of us in the west send money to help those in the third world who can use a little help. Western society, (our group or tribe) would be better served by eliminating these people freeing up their resources for ourselves, but instead of the we weaken our group for their benefit.
12ft chicken writes:
I have many questions about this section:
Removing the Bible, what is the purpose of a rule giver who does not tell us the rules? Or is it your thought that we naturally have these morals only becasuse we were given them?
If it is your thought that the Bible is not the code, but rather our hearts tell us God's Moral code, why is God so poor at ensuring that so many people act within the moral good? This is where the inconsistency with the code lies. Everybody's God is telling them different things within their hearts....where is the objectivity?
I think that I already dealt with that question in this thread. Message 88 or Message 130, and in other posts in this thread as well.
12ft chicken writes:
Also, on your point about computers, yes we have designed computers with intelligence, but not morals, correct? Could we design a computer with morality? It is possible I'm sure, but just because we can does not mean that morality cannot arise through natural means as well. This is not required to be a one way or another. After all, many of the appearances of design in nature are just superficial and do not really look designed when thought about in any engineering sense.
My point wasn’t really about morality directly. The point was that in order to have a type of intelligence within computers it was necessary to have an intelligent first cause.
12ft chicken writes:
Also, on computers, they do require a designer because they do not have random mutation and natural selection acting upon them. The same requirement is not guaranteed for reproducing, biological organisms. I have never been a fan of using inanimate objects as metaphors for something that reproduces an inexact copy which is then subject to selection.
I have never claimed that the requirement is guaranteed. I do submit that it seems reasonable to conclude that our intelligence is the result of an intelligent first cause.
12ft chicken writes:
How do you know that God is? Through objective experimentation or through subjective personal experience? Science tells us that our five senses can only perceive a small portion of the Universe. However, we can determine the nature of a lot that we cannot perceive (such as your mentions of dark matter, dark energy, and QM). We can verif y that these items do exist, even without being able to perceive them. Why can the same not be said of God? IMHO, we should rely solely on physical evidence, because that allows for objectivity to remove our biases. Without this, all tests are relegated to being subjective to an interpreters whims, so that the answer conforms to the researchers previous thoughts.
If we limit ourselves to what we can sense physically then we don’t know what we are missing. Scientists use subjectivity all the time and then hope to prove it objectively, but many times they hold subjective opinions that they aren’t able to resolve. How many scientists have gone to their grave believing in string theory which is still completely unproven and even discredited. I can’t say that I know that my beliefs are correct and I have no doubt that some of what I believe is wrong, however my experiences in life and what I have learned lead me to believe that I am on the right track. If I am wrong so be it.
Pretty much everything that I read is either science, (at the Brian Greene level only), or theology and frankly I not only don’t find them contradictory but I find them complimentary. Yes my conclusions are subjective but so is your atheistic position.
12ft chicken writes:
Finally, your last statement is simply an attempt to shoehorn a god into the explanation. You claim morals could not have evolved, yet then state that we can currently see them evolve. After which, you determine, without evidence, that it is God responsible for this evolution of morality. You are putting God into the answer before the topic has even been fully researched. Just looking at the last thousand years, it seems like it was society that began to determine that racism, sexism, ageism, murder in the name of religion, and constant warring were not right. People got fed up with poor treatment of others and themselves and began to look for a better way. This seems to be a perfect example of our species realizing that the tribe is slightly bigger and evolving morality to incorporate the entire new tribe. The next step in this would be considering the entire world our tribe and working for the benefit of everyone.
As you point out I agree that our sense of morality is evolving but I see you shoehorning in your completely naturalistic answer to the question of morals. You then support this by saying that the research isn’t complete which is a science of the gaps argument. In addition you say that racism, sexism, ageism, murder and constant warring in the name of religion is wrong. Well I would suggest that racism, sexism, ageism, murder and constant warring in the name of anything is wrong. People, whether they be religious or not are still morally flawed and many will find any excuse to further their lust for power over others.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 11-08-2012 2:35 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 11-12-2012 12:12 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 139 of 1221 (678563)
11-09-2012 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dawn Bertot
11-08-2012 5:33 PM


Re: God and War
Dawn Bertot writes:
Here is an illustration. At one point in time, the taking of life by the gladiators was viewed by them as valid and right. We on the other hand would say it was atleast wrong, if not immoral.
We would say that it is both wrong and immoral and it's simply one example of many that demonstrates that morality is a fluid concept that changes over time and between cultures.
You, on the other hand have said that morality is absolute. Yet despite being asked to say how this operates and to give examples of this absolute morality, you have so far ignored the requests. Why is this?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-08-2012 5:33 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-09-2012 5:12 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 140 of 1221 (678565)
11-09-2012 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
11-08-2012 2:38 PM


Re: The First Stage
Stile writes:
Interesting.
I've considered this many times. Moving on to another universe/world, or alternate dimensions, or different planes of existance, or even "simple" reincarnation here in our reality.
I just kept running into too many different things to try and explain. That always gave me the feeling of "well, I'm really just using my imagination now... maybe this whole idea is simply imagination..." Different things like:
Let's say that this is "the first level." How many levels are we talking about? 2? 50? 845,791? Infinite? Why are there multiple levels? I thought that there would either be a low number of levels (like 2) or a very high number of levels (possibly infinite).
Then the low number of levels didn't make sense to me... if it's "manufactured" (set up by God to be that way...), then why? Like a training ground? If a training ground is required, why not just include it as a separate area of the "Final Level" anyway? Why a completely cut-off level of existance? It seemed... unlikely.
If it's not manufactured (natural... somehow...) then why only 2? Was there originally just 1 and it split? Why wouldn't it split again?
Just 2 levels also makes me think of long-ago human ancestor's trying to deal with life and death... this idea makes me think that any "2-level" idea is more likely some sort of wishful thinking or over-active rationalization for simply being afraid of death.
Which leads me to thinking of multiple levels, perhaps uncountable. But then, if there's lots and lots of levels... isn't it naive to think that we're actually in the first one? Wouldn't it be more likely that we're at some random middle-level somewhere? If I'm in a middle level, why do I have no re-collection of being in/at previous levels?
This led me to begin thinking of "life" as some sort of "meta-consciousness" which kind of gets bored and sets pieces of itself out into the levels (whatever they are) to experience "life." These lives (when completed) add their experiences to the meta-consciousness which does, actually, remember everything.
...which then gets a bit too sci-fi and imaginary-sounding to me to take seriously anymore
And, of course, I don't have any evidence to lean my thoughts one way or another... so, to me, they remain "fanciful thoughts" until such a time when there may actually be something that indicates the possibility of their actual existance.
But I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.
How many "levels" do you think there are?
What makes you think we're in the "first" level?
Or is it all based on a biblical view of earth and then moving onto heaven (which could even be a metaphor for some other 2-stage level of existance)?
I hope this doesn't draw us too far off topic but it seems to me that the question is whether or not morality is possible with God. The question did not ask whether morality is possible without a belief in God. Therefore I think that a discussion about the existence of God and His ultimate purpose is relevant because if God doesn't exist or has no purpose then it would make the question moot.
In my view the best Christian scholar around is N T Wright. He talks a lot about life after life after death. Frankly I don’t know. I am firmly convinced that physical death isn't the end. I think however that this is the first level as we have no memory of a previous level. If Wright is correct then at the end of time whenever and however that might occur, then this world will be part of a great re-creation with heaven and earth coming together to form a greater reality.
My views on this are highly speculative and are based on the science I have read and from what I have gleaned from the Bible and Biblical scholars. There are a number of scientific theories that indicate that we are part of a greater reality. There is speculation that we are a hologram or a projection etc. The cover story for Scientific American a couple of years ago had the headline an entire universe may be silently interwoven within our own.
It is my belief that we are an emergent property of a greater reality. That idea seems to fit with QM. The Bible seems to give a sense of heaven being God’s dimension that in some way, that we can’t readily perceive, interlocks with our own, and that at some point in time will become fully interlocked again.
I think that time is a bit of a key to the mystery. Christianity talks about the eternal nature of God. The thing is we only have one time dimension so it is hard to get our head around eternity. Some scientific theories involve additional time dimensions. It seems to me conceivable that the greater reality might have additional time dimensions. If that is true then just as we can move infinitely around our three dimensional planet, with 3 dimensions of time possibly we could move in some similar fashion infinitely in time.
Those are just some thoughts but it helps me to envision how it might all might work.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 11-08-2012 2:38 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 2:57 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 141 of 1221 (678610)
11-09-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dogmafood
11-08-2012 10:28 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
Dogmafood writes:
I am referring to the evidence of natural history. All the evidence that we have that shows our lineage back to but not including our first spark.
I do not see any evidence for a prime mover that can not be identified as having been created by our natural tendency to imagine causes for things that we can not see. Again, this may be how a prime mover would choose to reveal himself but it looks like circular reasoning to me.
You are saying that I make the assumption that life came about by natural causes but natural causes are the only thing that I actually have evidence for.
But that isn't evidence. You cite natural history as evidence. That is just a record of what happened but is silent on the point of the root cause of what happened.
What is the evidence that our intelligence and morality have evolved from a strictly non-intelligent, non-moral root cause? I'm not claiming that I have evidence for an intelligent moral root cause. I agree that my conclusion is subjective but IMHO it is more feasible than your position but I have a hunch you'll disagree.
The argument that morality has evolved because we found that it served our interest best as societies in my view doesn't stand up. In the first place that is only a shadow of morality. It suggests that real morality doesn't actually exist, even though it gives the appearance of what we call morality, as in the end is all about what's good for me or my society.
Morality is about choosing the right thing simply because it's the right thing. I would also go further. True morality should bring joy. I think that the vast majority of people are affected emotionally by extreme moral actions. When we read about people giving or risking their lives for others we usually feel a strong emotional response and can even be moved to tears. If we really believed that it was only something done because it was an instinctive response that best served the gene pool or the society then why would we feel such a strong emotional response? For that matter if we are just a product of a random collection of lifeless particles why would we feel an emotional response to anything?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dogmafood, posted 11-08-2012 10:28 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Dogmafood, posted 11-09-2012 2:51 PM GDR has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 142 of 1221 (678634)
11-09-2012 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by GDR
11-09-2012 10:42 AM


Re: Lack of Standard
I agree that my conclusion is subjective but IMHO it is more feasible than your position but I have a hunch you'll disagree.
So be it.
Morality is about choosing the right thing simply because it's the right thing.
I think that we can only know which things are right by imagining ourselves on the receiving end of the action. I don't know which other metric you can refer to with such intimacy.
If we really believed that it was only something done because it was an instinctive response that best served the gene pool or the society then why would we feel such a strong emotional response?
Because that is the way it works. The emotional response is the control that promotes the behaviour. What we think about it seems to make little difference to our genetically programmed behaviour. (edit;although we can certainly resist or enforce it)
Being consciously aware of the fact that it is a natural instinct makes it very easy for me to get behind the idea of being kind to people. When I realize that the behaviour has been selected for over the millennia and that the laws of nature favour cooperation it is easy for me to take up the default position of being kind. I seldom resist the urge to act in a way that might be seen as selfless. I don't think about the fact that it is actually a selfish act I just enjoy the tripping dopamine receptors.
True morality should bring joy.
I think that it always does and for that reason we should appreciate the opportunity to help others. I can see the baseness of that position but I don't think we really need to be ashamed of the fact.
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 11-09-2012 10:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 11-09-2012 7:02 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 143 of 1221 (678635)
11-09-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by GDR
11-09-2012 2:28 AM


Re: The First Stage
GDR writes:
I think however that this is the first level as we have no memory of a previous level.
Technically, yes... this is a very good reason to think that this is "the first level" if there are multiple levels to existance.
As well, if we assume that this is indeed the first level, of course no one else has any other memories either... as we're all on the same, first level.
To me, it's just too much coincidence that it's also great evidence for this being the "only level." But I suppose only time will tell?
My views on this are highly speculative and are based on the science I have read and from what I have gleaned from the Bible and Biblical scholars.
Heh.
My views are "highly speculative" as well. In the "out-of-my-ass" kind of way. I don't even know of any science that would back up my views
There are a number of scientific theories that indicate that we are part of a greater reality. There is speculation that we are a hologram or a projection etc.
Agreed.
I would add some caution here, though. The word "greater" in this scientific sense simply means "bigger" or "larger" in a "more" kind of way. Not necessarily "better" or something like that. It might be better... or it might be worse... or it might be like "more stars in the night sky" that don't make much of a difference to us one way or another. But the scientific analysis (so far) can't really say one way or the other.
It seems to me conceivable that the greater reality might have additional time dimensions. If that is true then just as we can move infinitely around our three dimensional planet, with 3 dimensions of time possibly we could move in some similar fashion infinitely in time.
Interesting thought.
You may think of me pondering it with a pipe in my mouth and a super-cool look on my face. As if I just won a poker game. That'll likely be better than the reality of me half-pondering it during my morning shave.
But thanks for the idea, it does give me something to think about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 11-09-2012 2:28 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by GDR, posted 11-09-2012 7:52 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 144 of 1221 (678652)
11-09-2012 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Tangle
11-09-2012 2:07 AM


Re: God and War
We would say that it is both wrong and immoral and it's simply one example of many that demonstrates that morality is a fluid concept that changes over time and between cultures.
You, on the other hand have said that morality is absolute. Yet despite being asked to say how this operates and to give examples of this absolute morality, you have so far ignored the requests. Why is this?
It amazes me the inability to comprehend what is actually taking place in this instance. I never maintained that morality was an absolute, even though i believe that, because I believe in God. It is not necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, morality in any real sense is not a possibility.
Saying that I have ignored requests by not giving examples of absolute morality, is silly, because the burden of proof is on the one, that believes, morality can exist, without God. Hence the title of the thread.
What i have demonstrated, is that your contention that morality is fluid and that murder is wrong and immoral, has gone unchallenged in any logical fashion.
My illustrations of the fact, that you have no explination for the murder of lower species for your consumption, yet believe, that it it wrong within your species, is both ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL
My argument that morality has to be across the board concerning all species and reality itself, has gone unchallenged
My argument that you can provide no logical proposition that will allow you to justify calling morality, right or wrong, has gone unprovided and unchallenged
Your initial statement above is evidence of the fact that you can provide no valid argument, except to assume, that morality, right or wrong, is such, if it involves only your species
Any tyro in logic can see the problem with that scenario.
Since you have seen fit to answer none of my arguments, actually, Ill present you with another question.
Why do you think it is, that when you take another species life, you feel no moral remorse or obligation. IOWs, you dont feel morally, right or wrong, just indifference. Nothing obligatory
I have no hope that anyone will actually tackle my earlier arguments, so Ill just run with this
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Tangle, posted 11-09-2012 2:07 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dogmafood, posted 11-09-2012 6:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 146 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2012 6:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 6:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 154 by Tangle, posted 11-10-2012 3:32 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 145 of 1221 (678664)
11-09-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
11-09-2012 5:12 PM


Re: God and War
My argument that morality has to be across the board concerning all species and reality itself, has gone unchallenged
When morality is understood to be based on a self centred metric then it actually does apply across all species and reality. It is every bit as moral for a lion to try and kill and eat me as it is for me to kill and eat a cow. I don't exactly feel sorry for the cow but I am aware of it's ability to suffer. It would be moral for an alien species to try and kill and eat me if it was necessary for their survival.
It can not be immoral for me to fulfil the requirements of my continued existence. When I am hungry, the immoral act would be to die of starvation.
My argument that you can provide no logical proposition that will allow you to justify calling morality, right or wrong, has gone unprovided and unchallenged
Things are right or wrong, in my opinion, because I decide that they are. Where is your free will if you can not decide what is right or wrong, in your opinion?
Every action that you might take is motivated by some self interest. All the way from brushing your teeth to saving a child from a fire. The entire concept of morality comes into it because we recognize the fact that some actions appear selfless. We acknowledge the behaviour as being beneficial to the tribe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-09-2012 5:12 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 146 of 1221 (678665)
11-09-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
11-09-2012 5:12 PM


Re: God and War
Dawn writes:
Why do you think it is, that when you take another species life, you feel no moral remorse or obligation. IOWs, you dont feel morally, right or wrong, just indifference. Nothing obligatory
You are mistaken.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-09-2012 5:12 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 147 of 1221 (678668)
11-09-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
11-09-2012 5:12 PM


Re: God and War
Why do you think it is, that when you take another species life, you feel no moral remorse or obligation.
That depends largely on the species in question, and the person.
PETA members seem to feel quite a lot of moral outrage regarding the killing or mistreatment of just about all animal life above that of the cockroach.
Most Americans would experience moral outrage over the unnecessary killing or and form of abuse of a cat or dog.
Some people care more about their pets than they do human beings, if those human beings live far enough away or can otherwise be conveniently ignored.
Only a few people (religious extremists of the pacifist variety) actually morally care about the killing of microbes, but they exist as well.
But as usual, reality doesn't actually factor in to your ramblings.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-09-2012 5:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2012 7:23 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 172 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 5:19 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 148 of 1221 (678669)
11-09-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dogmafood
11-09-2012 2:51 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
Dogmafood writes:
I think that we can only know which things are right by imagining ourselves on the receiving end of the action. I don't know which other metric you can refer to with such intimacy.
That would be one way but I don't even think it works like that. By right thing I don't just mean it to be just applicable to what we say or do. I see it more as a case of the motivation or what it is that drives us. I would say that the right thing is the kind thing, the merciful thing or the just thing and discerning what that is isn't always clear. Two different people could come to opposite conclusions and yet both could be choosing the right thing as they both had a sincere motivation or heart to choose what was loving and without thought to the consequences for themselves.
Dogmafood writes:
Being consciously aware of the fact that it is a natural instinct makes it very easy for me to get behind the idea of being kind to people. When I realize that the behaviour has been selected for over the millennia and that the laws of nature favour cooperation it is easy for me to take up the default position of being kind. I seldom resist the urge to act in a way that might be seen as selfless. I don't think about the fact that it is actually a selfish act I just enjoy the tripping dopamine receptors.
I think it goes deeper than that. As humans we even experience an emotional response to acts of fictional sacrificial kindness in our entertainment.
Dogmafood writes:
I think that it always does and for that reason we should appreciate the opportunity to help others. I can see the baseness of that position but I don't think we really need to be ashamed of the fact.
I don't think we should be ashamed of it either but on the other hand if I go around thinking what a wonderful person I am, then I think I'm missing the point.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dogmafood, posted 11-09-2012 2:51 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dogmafood, posted 11-09-2012 8:07 PM GDR has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 149 of 1221 (678674)
11-09-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rahvin
11-09-2012 6:57 PM


Re: God and War
Rahvin writes:
But as usual, reality doesn't actually factor in to your ramblings.
And we have special terms (and predicted outcomes) for some people who kill animals without remorse.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 6:57 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 7:39 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 150 of 1221 (678678)
11-09-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Omnivorous
11-09-2012 7:23 PM


Re: God and War
And we have special terms (and predicted outcomes) for some people who kill animals without remorse.
That depends. Most people don't feel a lot of remorse over the chicken that died for their dinner. Fewer people feel remorse over killing a fish to eat. Even more people feel no remorse over killing a rat with a trap. Virtually nobody feels remorse for killing a cockroach.
There are people who regularly feed mice or even live rabbits to their pet snakes with not a shred of remorse.
Society as a whole doesn't judge any of those things to be particularly heinous. Sometimes a bit excessive, and there is a minority of people who thinks all of the above are wicked and evil...but let's not kid ourselves here.
Human moral concern over non-human species is a mixed and often completely subjective bag. We care more about generalities and less about specifics; we care more about "cute" and less about "tasty." And we don't care almost at all about "disease-ridden" or "creepy-crawly." It's primarily driven by culture...which of course is yet again a demonstration that morality is not centered on some "objective standard," but is in fact flexible and is defined by societies in a form of mutable collective consensus that changes over time and varies across geopolitical regions.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2012 7:23 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2012 8:00 PM Rahvin 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