Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without god
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 211 of 1221 (680669)
11-20-2012 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Tangle
11-17-2012 4:32 AM


Wrong. The reason we treat the crimes committed by children and the mentally ill differently from adults and the sane is because we understand that they have a poor understanding of right and wrong - they have their own versions of it which is both rational and reasonable to THEM but not to US.
I know you get tired of hearing this, but right and wrong, of must of necessity be a logical proposition and not a perspective or opinion from ones own species
The universe will close in on you one day and it will not care about your supposed morailty. The same thing that supposedly brought you into existence, will snuff you out with a violence and sufferning you cannot imagine
the sun will explode with such violence it will burn you to cinder, with such violence, if you happen to be around at that time
It will do this with the same biological process you use to help a drownding horse in a river. it will us the same biological process you use to walk pat the horse and choose not to save him
its all relative, eh
Morality is an agreement between the majority members of adult society about behaviour; it's fluid between societies and over time. All you're saying is that it's not absolute - well so what? You have refused to tell us what an absolute morality would actually be or even give us an example or tell us why it matters. All that you say is that it must come from a god. Will any god do?
wrong i have explained that a morality any morality is a logical proposition pitted against reality. Your so-called morality is derived from your perspective which will not work from any logical perspective
I answered your question several times and challenged you to demonstrate why your morality is ACTUALLY right or WRONG from reality, not your perspective
Can you explain what Right and Wrong actually are apart from your perspective, which is only part of reality, not all of it?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2012 4:32 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Taq, posted 11-20-2012 4:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 216 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2012 6:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 212 of 1221 (680670)
11-20-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
Dawn Bertot writes:
Do you think either group was right or wrong. What do you use for a standard to establish which is right or wrong
Both groups were wrong. What benefit was gained by the senseless murder of so many? I have tried to explain the idea of an objective morality from an atheistic view and you have yet to respond to the exact point of it once. All you have done is assert that it is not possible because it is not absolute (a contention I have never held about morality, even when I believed in a God).
So, again we must classify bad and good, without a God. I stand by the idea that Sam Harris states:
Bad = That which causes everything to suffer.
Good = That which causes everything to benefit.
Within these two absolutes, there lies our relative morality.
In the case of the Inquisition questions you asked, these killings would not be moral because individuals did not attempt to relieve any suffering from those that were not killed by killing the unbelievers. In fact, due to the fear of possible death, those left alive would have lived with more suffering, so the church managed to increase total suffering.
In the opposite vein, look at World War 2. Did the suffering visited upon the German people by the allies serve to relieve the suffering of enough individuals to make the killing of German men, women and children moral? While this is a tough question, it is apparent (to me at least) that the there was a total relief of suffering through the actions taken by the allies. Europe was freed from despotic rule, millions were saved from some of the most inhumane treatment ever visited upon humans. Yes, the cost was many, many lives but the action lowered the total suffering in the world and thus was a higher level in the moral landscape.
I would like to point out that I used to believe like you did that without God there could not be morality. However, as I have thought more about it, I have realized that we have no evidence for God and a lot of evidence for morality. Why should I attribute this to the unevidenced entity instead of looking for logical explanations?
One final point and I could be wrong, but you mention that we would refer to a lion as murdering a human being. I have not heard someone use this phrase for this type of death, so perhaps you could point me to someone calling a lion attack murder? We would say the lion killed the person, but not murdered because murder is considered a crime between two humans. Why is that? Because we attribute murder to something that has been thought through, planned, or is basically the result of a conscious action (hence requiring the term manslaughter), something that we cannot provide evidence that a lion or dog or hippo is capable of. So, please stop attributing words to occurances that they do not describe unless you can provide evidence of the word being used in this manner (not by one or two people, but by a preponderance of those who communicate in human languages).
Oh...and before you bring up our species putting dogs down that attack humans. You must look at this from a moral standpoint. If there is a chance that this dog could attack again, it would be beneficial to society (create benefit for more by reducing the chance of a dog attacking and injuring or killing someone) through the loss of one. I am not saying it is nice, not saying it is a pleasant thought, only that it is moral in what is a relative morality (whether it comes from religion or not, it is always relative)
I understand what your statement is, but I cannot agree in any way, shape, or form with how you constantly shove God into the explanation even though it is not necessary. We see the morality you are discussing, even without God. All you are doing is claiming to know God is responsible for it, without any evidence (whether through logic or observation) to support this statement. I have no issue with you thinking God is responsible, but please do not claim that it is the only rational explanation, when it is first based on irrationally assuming an entity that is unevidenced.
ABE - Also, this is not specfic to our species. It is seen in rudimentary forms in other species. Such as altruism in other primates, working together to feed the entire pod in Dolphins, providing for the older wolves in a pack, and protecting an owner from danger in the case of dogs (unless you think this is only food related, which as a dog owner for many years, I do not). Plus, humanity has recently extended its morality to extend to treatment of many other species. It is not perfect yet, but it is evolving in the right way.
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing!
What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. -Robin Williams-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2012 1:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-23-2012 5:29 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

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


Message 213 of 1221 (680671)
11-20-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dogmafood
11-19-2012 4:52 AM


Co-operation is not the same as morality
Dogmafood writes:
That seems a contradiction that you would willingly send your resources to some stranger because it is the right thing to do and yet claim that you see no benefit in it for yourself. Doing the right thing is a benefit.
What makes it the right thing to do? Have I missed your answer to this question?
Why is doing the right thing a benefit? When we send our money to, or spend our time on behalf of people that we will never see or have any relationship with, I am only depleting the resources that I have for myself, my gene pool or my own society. Because I give money to various causes, means not only that I will have less time and money for myself but also that my kids inheritance will be smaller.
The question about what makes it the right thing to do is what this thread is about. It is my contention that it is our natural instinct is to look out for number one. If we sense a benefit in serving the community by apparently selfless behaviour then it isn’t really selfless at all.
In spite of that we seem to have a somewhat fuzzy sense of morality, in that we know that there is a right and wrong even though we won’t always agree about which is which. My belief is that morality isn’t specifically about what we do or say or don’t do and say. We shouldn’t IMHO confuse morality with our legal systems. In my view morality all boils down to whether or not our actions are selfish or unselfish.
The right thing then is when given a moral choice we choose the unselfish answer.
Dogmafood writes:
Regarding the question of which theory of the origin of moral behaviour is more plausible. We can look back down the evolutionary line and see the causes for and the benefits of our cooperative behaviour. We can see the motivation behind the creation of a control structure that socially reinforces those instinctive behaviours. The behaviour is codified replete with the threat of punishment. We can see all of the natural mechanisms and motivations that led to the development of the God figure in our psyche.
Yes, I agree that there are benefits to co-operative behaviour. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that, but there very often are often disadvantages to co-operative behaviour and yet as humans we often seem to be able to rise above that. Yes, we really do socially reinforce co-operative behaviour in our societies because we gain a sense of security but that has nothing to do with what is moral. The fact that we have laws against murder has nothing to do with morality but everything to do with keeping me safe.
I agree that the development of our understanding of God has evolved and very much continues to evolve. This would be what I would expect if I am correct that we have a god who has given us the free will to make moral choices. Our understanding of moral choices would evolve over time as our societies grow and build relationship. As our understanding of our moral choices develop we gain a clearer picture of a perfectly moral god.
Dogmafood writes:
While it is plausible that a real God may have revealed himself this way it seems to me that this is the reification of our own fabricated concept? However implausible it is for inanimate chemicals to spring to life the idea does not require any supernatural input. The only source for such an input is clearly identified as having arisen from our need or desire to identify causes or to imagine them when they are not evident.
How do we know that inanimate chemicals can spring to life without so-called supernatural input? For one thing the chemicals had to form from cells and molecules, which had to form from what are essentially non-dimensional particles in the first place so that point of view just continues to be more implausible all the time. In addition what we call supernatural now might not be supernatural if we had sufficient knowledge to discern other universes or dimensions around us.
How do we know what the only source was? Just because we have a desire or a need to identify causes does not in any way negate the actual existence of such a cause, and IMHO the fact that we have that desire is subjective evidence that there is an actual basis for the desire.
Dogmafood writes:
It occurs to me that not only is cooperative behaviour a naturally emergent quality of living things but that it is a fundamental requirement for living things that begins when the first 2 cells clumped together. Cooperation is integral to life.
I don’t completely agree with that but it isn’t the point anyway. What you are describing is not morality. What you are describing is how we have worked things out as humans for our mutual benefit. Morality is not about what we do, it is about our heart. It is about the basic drive or motivation that defines who we are as human beings.

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 207 by Dogmafood, posted 11-19-2012 4:52 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dogmafood, posted 11-20-2012 9:25 PM GDR has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 1221 (680673)
11-20-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dogmafood
11-01-2012 11:43 AM


New Study
I just ran across this Scientific American article: Scientists Probe Human Natureand Discover We are Good, after All
quote:
Recent studies find our first impulses are selfless
I'll post some relevant material from the news article.
First off:
quote:
This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thoughtidentifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action.
They don't seem to agree with your stance on all action being motivated and thus stemming from desire. I like that dual mechanism.
quote:
With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behaviorselfishness or cooperationis intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection?
They also contrast selfishness with cooperation rather than just deeming all behavior as selfish.
quote:
The results were striking: in every single study, fasterthat is, more intuitivedecisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slowerthat is, more reflectivedecisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate
quote:
Both studies showed the same patternwhether people were forced to use intuition (by acting under time constraints) or simply encouraged to do so (through priming), they gave significantly more money to the common good than did participants who relied on reflection to make their choices. This again suggests that our intuitive impulse is to cooperate with others.
Now, here's where your stuff comes in:
quote:
they found that the relationship between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in interactions where this behavior is rewardedthat human goodness may result from the acquisition of a regularly rewarded trait.
So you could define all actions as selfish if you wanted to, but its unecessary and unhelpful, imho.
quote:
this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.
quote:
But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.
So yeah, we don't have to consider all action as selfish.
Here is the abstract from the Nature article
quote:
Spontaneous giving and calculated greed
Cooperation is central to human social behaviour. However, choosing to cooperate requires individuals to incur a personal cost to benefit others. Here we explore the cognitive basis of cooperative decision-making in humans using a dual-process framework. We ask whether people are predisposed towards selfishness, behaving cooperatively only through active self-control; or whether they are intuitively cooperative, with reflection and prospective reasoning favouring ‘rational’ self-interest. To investigate this issue, we perform ten studies using economic games. We find that across a range of experimental designs, subjects who reach their decisions more quickly are more cooperative. Furthermore, forcing subjects to decide quickly increases contributions, whereas instructing them to reflect and forcing them to decide slowly decreases contributions. Finally, an induction that primes subjects to trust their intuitions increases contributions compared with an induction that promotes greater reflection. To explain these results, we propose that cooperation is intuitive because cooperative heuristics are developed in daily life where cooperation is typically advantageous. We then validate predictions generated by this proposed mechanism. Our results provide convergent evidence that intuition supports cooperation in social dilemmas, and that reflection can undermine these cooperative impulses.
So, I don't think your idea that considering all action as selfish is some path to truth. Evolutionary Psycology studies don't seem to view it that way either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dogmafood, posted 11-01-2012 11:43 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Dogmafood, posted 11-22-2012 12:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 215 of 1221 (680682)
11-20-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2012 1:52 PM


I know you get tired of hearing this, but right and wrong, of must of necessity be a logical proposition and not a perspective or opinion from ones own species
However, there is no reason that a deity must be involved in that logical proposition. Choosing which deity to obey, and even if we should obey a deity, are moral decisions made by our own species, assuming that deities exist in the first place.
It gets even worse for religious texts which are man made texts.
The universe will close in on you one day and it will not care about your supposed morailty.
I beg to differ. I feel that one the most important things in life is to treat my fellow man with respect and to act morally. When the universe closes in on me I will care very much if I can look back at a life that fit the ideals I set out for myself. I will also be proud of myself if others are also able to look at my life and see a moral man who sought justice and respect where he could.
I answered your question several times and challenged you to demonstrate why your morality is ACTUALLY right or WRONG from reality, not your perspective
What if the perspective is drawn from reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2012 1:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 216 of 1221 (680695)
11-20-2012 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2012 1:52 PM


DB writes:
right and wrong, of must of necessity be a logical proposition and not a perspective or opinion from ones own species
And exactly how do we get the opinion of an ant, a privet hedge and a giraffe?
Your so-called morality is derived from your perspective which will not work from any logical perspective
Er, it's from the perspective of the society I live in, not my own personal view. And it's so logical that we actually create a whole category of rational thought on it - we call it law and it's so practical that we enforce it.
Final time of asking. What is this absolute morality of which you speak. Please provide an example.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2012 1:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2012 5:15 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 217 of 1221 (680696)
11-20-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
An underlying substance was the very point I was making. They ofcourse have no reality. That is why as they say you cannot capture a thought. Anyway, it does not matter, the supposed right and wrong that are extrapolations from these existent or non-existent emotions are derived from a mulduplicity of confusing ideas and expectations, they therefore cannot be objective in real sense of the world
So, just to make it clear, you deny the existence of feelings and thoughts, and on this basis you deny the existence of right and wrong?
Do you think either group was right or wrong.
I think they were both wrong.
What do you use for a standard to establish which is right or wrong
I use an irreligious standard. It keeps me from setting fire to people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2012 1:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2012 5:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 218 of 1221 (680718)
11-20-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by GDR
11-20-2012 2:38 PM


Re: Co-operation is not the same as morality
Why is doing the right thing a benefit?
Essentially because you have decided that it is the right thing to do. When you do it, even though the apparent benefit goes to some other, there is a sense of having done the right thing. I think that you are underestimating the benefit that you enjoy when you do the 'right thing'.
The question about what makes it the right thing to do is what this thread is about. It is my contention that it is our natural instinct is to look out for number one. If we sense a benefit in serving the community by apparently selfless behaviour then it isn’t really selfless at all.
You seem to be making my point for me.
For the action to be considered selfish all or most of the benefits are clearly identified as belonging to the actor. When some of the benefit is received by some other person then the action is called kind or generous. When all or most of the benefit is received by another then the action is perceived as selfless.
My key point is that there are benefits to the selfless actor that go unrecognised. Mostly by the observer but also by the actor. When you give up your resources to the obvious benefit of others you also gain less obvious benefits for yourself. Such as a sense of having done a good thing. It is a good thing, in your opinion, because you imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action.
That sense of having done a good deed is more rewarding than we acknowledge on the surface and it would be because acknowledging it detracts from the idea that it is a good deed.
The right thing then is when given a moral choice we choose the unselfish answer.
By that standard most of what we do is immoral. For example, when you choose to turn on your air conditioner instead of sending the electricity money (or the money to buy an air conditioner) to someone who could use it for food or shelter. Any resources that we spend on anything that is not essential to our survival are spent immorally. (Run that one past the marketing department!) If that definition of morality is valid then morality is mostly absent from society.
In my view morality all boils down to whether or not our actions are selfish or unselfish.
In my view it boils down to people doing what they honestly believe is the right thing to do.
Yes, I agree that there are benefits to co-operative behaviour. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that, but there very often are often disadvantages to co-operative behaviour and yet as humans we often seem to be able to rise above that.
I maintain that the disadvantages are more than compensated for by our sense of satisfaction with having done the right thing.
I am still curious as to where this idea of 'rising above' comes from.
How do we know what the only source was? Just because we have a desire or a need to identify causes does not in any way negate the actual existence of such a cause, and IMHO the fact that we have that desire is subjective evidence that there is an actual basis for the desire.
I find myself strongly agreeing with this statement and yet there is something wrong with it that I can't quite finger.
Morality is not about what we do, it is about our heart. It is about the basic drive or motivation that defines who we are as human beings.
The most basic drive that I can spot is one of self preservation. That is what drives us and that is what we ultimately refer to when we decide what to do. That is where our hearts live. But self preservation is not as clear cut as it may seem at first blush. There is an assessment of the quality of our existence that usurps mere existence from the pinnacle of our desires. It really isn't much fun to be the king of the hill all by yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by GDR, posted 11-20-2012 2:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by GDR, posted 11-21-2012 1:13 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 11-22-2012 1:07 AM Dogmafood has replied

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


Message 219 of 1221 (680733)
11-21-2012 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Dogmafood
11-20-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Co-operation is not the same as morality
I don't have time to answer your post with the respect it deserves but I just want to reply to this one statement.
Dogmafood writes:
In my view it boils down to people doing what they honestly believe is the right thing to do.
I think this is the key to where we differ. I don't see morality being what people do. What people do is a result of their morality or their lack of morality. In other words, morality is not an action but a state of heart and mind.
Good well thought out post by the way.

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 218 by Dogmafood, posted 11-20-2012 9:25 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 220 of 1221 (680923)
11-21-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Dr Adequate
11-20-2012 6:44 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
So, just to make it clear, you deny the existence of feelings and thoughts, and on this basis you deny the existence of right and wrong?
Wrong, even if I percieve emotions as not being real things, they are still just chemical processes. Buts lets assume they have some actual existence, they are still just matter in motion or manifestations of the physical process
Which doesnt help your position any better. As i have now established more than once, random, varied and contradictory emotions cant be a basis for right and wrong.
its about as silliy as 12ft chicken using the term, Relative Morality. Its elf defeating and incredibly self contradictory. But i am sure he will see the light on even that small point after a while
I use an irreligious standard. It keeps me from setting fire to people.
but your standard wont keep you from spraying ants and insects in the face with pesticides, that sting, choke and torture the little guys to death correct?
Im sure you are starting to see why any standard of right and wrong as to be reality based and why it has to apply across the board, otherwise its just non-sense.
But I wish it were only that bad, its gets worse. Even if it applied consistently across the board it still wouldnt matter in a strickly matter in motion existence
The universe you worship will close in on you witha violence that makes the crusades look like an evening at the pops
Stupid universe, be more funny!!!!!!
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2012 6:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 5:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 221 of 1221 (680927)
11-21-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Tangle
11-20-2012 6:35 PM


And exactly how do we get the opinion of an ant, a privet hedge and a giraffe?
I appreciate you asking the question in this manner. It demonstrates that you are learning.
The point is that it doesnt matter whether you can percieve thier emotions or not, all life should be sacred and the idea of Murder as applied to humans should apply across the board for you to even have a starting point.
But since no species will ever come to an agreement on what constitutes murder or torture, it follows no standard can even be contemplated
Er, it's from the perspective of the society I live in, not my own personal view. And it's so logical that we actually create a whole category of rational thought on it - we call it law and it's so practical that we enforce it.
Final time of asking. What is this absolute morality of which you speak. Please provide an example.
Ill try again, to see if you are paying attention. An absolute morality, right or wrong can only exist where the possibility of no more information can be gathered, to make a decision or conclusion concerning any matter,. ie infinite wisdom
If you consider such a thing as non-existent and all things are basically equal in existence, you are finite in your understanding and limited to effects of the universe, then it follows logically you cannot have or know what morality is or is not
Any morality has to be established logically and from the standpoint f all reality, for it to have any meaning at all
Now, please show me how this not logical

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2012 6:35 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 6:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 224 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 6:33 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 222 of 1221 (680932)
11-21-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Dawn Bertot
11-21-2012 5:00 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
Wrong, even if I percieve emotions as not being real things, they are still just chemical processes. Buts lets assume they have some actual existence, they are still just matter in motion or manifestations of the physical process
Like my house is just a manifestation of bricks?
Your point, if you have one, is getting continually more confused and obscure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2012 5:00 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-22-2012 9:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 223 of 1221 (680943)
11-21-2012 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Dawn Bertot
11-21-2012 5:15 PM


DB writes:
The point is that it doesnt matter whether you can percieve thier emotions or not, all life should be sacred and the idea of Murder as applied to humans should apply across the board for you to even have a starting point.
When you say ALL life, you mean animal life only don't you? Because, of course, if you include plants, you're buggered. Pretty, daft really, we all starve to death.
And then you somehow you have to deal with carnivores. Your god thought it ok for animals to eat other animals (and a few plants to eat them too.) So how come it's not moral for us?
Then, of course, if you really believed this garbage, you'd be a Jainist not a Christian.
Ill try again, to see if you are paying attention.
How could I not be, you're hilarious! Don't ever change.
An absolute morality, right or wrong can only exist where the possibility of no more information can be gathered, to make a decision or conclusion concerning any matter,. ie infinite wisdom
Well ok then, until this infinite wisdom comes along, I guess we'll have to make do with what we have - human wisdom.
I note you still haven't provided us with an example of what this absolute morality actually IS. Could it be because you haven't a bloody clue?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2012 5:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-22-2012 10:34 PM Tangle has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 224 of 1221 (680949)
11-21-2012 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Dawn Bertot
11-21-2012 5:15 PM


But the Bible says God doesn't have absolute knowledge.
An absolute morality, right or wrong can only exist where the possibility of no more information can be gathered, to make a decision or conclusion concerning any matter,. ie infinite wisdom
But the Bible says that even God does not have all the information or infinite wisdom and sometimes needs a dope slap from man to behave morally.
I gotta ask yet again, have you ever actually read the Bible?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2012 5:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Phat, posted 11-22-2012 12:29 AM jar has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 225 of 1221 (681000)
11-22-2012 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
11-20-2012 2:43 PM


Re: New Study
They don't seem to agree with your stance on all action being motivated and thus stemming from desire.
I disagree.
The authors of the study are using the word 'selfish' in the colloquial sense. They are assuming that more generosity equates to less personal benefit. They do not address the issue of hidden benefits at all. They do not address the question of why our instinct is to be cooperative. The answer to which is because it serves our number one motivation of self preservation.
It seems to me that the study completely supports my position.
Our tendency to cooperate is instinctive and not based on rational reflective thought. Moral behaviour is not founded on some conscious sense of doing the greater good but on a hard wired instinct to cooperate. Instincts become instincts because they help us to survive and not because we choose them as the superior or moral course of action. (Although, imho, the moral course is the one that best helps us to survive.)
If our instinct was to not cooperate and we only cooperated after rational consideration then moral behaviour could be reasonably credited to a conscious awareness of some greater good. In other words, action could be ultimately motivated by something other than selfishness.
If moral behaviour is instinctive then it is does not really support the idea that our morality is something that we choose. The idea of morality itself becomes something like an assessment of how well some piece of hardware is running some bit of software.
As Omni said previously, nobody wants to give up their free will, myself included, but these conversations always seem to lead there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2012 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2012 12:13 PM Dogmafood 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