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
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 256 of 1221 (681261)
11-23-2012 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Phat
11-23-2012 11:21 PM


Re: Even sheep that think they walk independantly have a shepherd
Being led by the Shepherd.
You dont need to believe that the shepherd is leading you in order to be led by the shepherd. You simply have to do what you know internally is right. You may think its your conscience but it is His voice.
Fuck you. And the horse you rode in on.
Comparison of Mosaic Law and Hummurabi's Code, which predates Mosaic Code (AKA "Torah", AKA "The Law") shows that Mosaic Law was based on Hummurabi's Code, except that Hammurabi Code would err on the side of freedom and life where Mosaic Law would err on the side of slavery and death.
Hammurabi's Code was given to us by the Gods Bel and Anu. Therefore, those atheists who do the right thing "hear{ing} no voice" are really being led by Bel and Anu? Is that what you are saying? Because that's what you certainly appear to be saying!
You think it's YAHVEH's voice they're hearing? No, it's Bel and Anu's voices that they're hearing! At least centuries before anybody ever even heard of your freakin' YHVH!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Phat, posted 11-23-2012 11:21 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 257 of 1221 (681262)
11-24-2012 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by GDR
11-22-2012 1:07 AM


Selflessness Test
Why should we feel good for doing the right thing? IMHO it is because we had a sense of morality in the first place.
Consider some action that is amoral in nature. Say an artist painting a picture. Is the good feeling that the artist enjoys from their creation not caused by the same mechanism that causes the good feeling that you get from helping someone who is in need? When they get the picture just right they are rewarded with some sense of satisfaction. We feel good when we do the right thing because that is the way that the mind works in all situations and not just in a moral dilemma.
I concede that there is no way that I can prove that God did not instil our sense of morality as it is an unfalsifiable idea.
On the other hand though we do have the ability to overcome to a small degree our instinct for selfishness and we are on occasion capable of even completely selfless behaviour.
I am a self employed contractor and do work for a lot of different people. I often do more for my customers than is required of me. I bring in their papers, I scoop up the dog shit in their yard, I fix things that are not related to what I was hired to do, I am constantly talking people out of paying me to do work that is not necessary. I decide to do these things in the moment because I would appreciate having them done for me. I do these things 'at my expense' because, in the end, it makes ME feel good.
Here is a selflessness challenge. The next time that you are going to send $100 to Uganda send it anonymously to Donald Trump instead. Tell him to enjoy a nice cup of coffee.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 11-22-2012 1:07 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 11-24-2012 12:42 PM Dogmafood has replied

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


(3)
Message 258 of 1221 (681264)
11-24-2012 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Phat
11-23-2012 11:21 PM


Re: Even sheep that think they walk independantly have a shepherd
Phat writes:
You dont need to believe that the shepherd is leading you in order to be led by the shepherd. You simply have to do what you know internally is right. You may think its your conscience but it is His voice.
You just killed the concept of free will.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Phat, posted 11-23-2012 11:21 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 259 of 1221 (681270)
11-24-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Phat
11-23-2012 11:21 PM


Re: Even sheep that think they walk independantly have a shepherd
You dont need to believe that the shepherd is leading you in order to be led by the shepherd. You simply have to do what you know internally is right. You may think its your conscience but it is His voice.
But people's consciences tell them different things. They say "support gay marriage" or "gay marriage is of the devil". Can both these things be "His voice"? If so, he's talking out of both sides of his face. If not, then when I do "what I know internally is right" then I'm probably just following my conscience after all.
It would be great, of course, to believe that God guides every moral decision I make, but the logical corollary of that would be that I'm really really special, since there's probably no-one on Earth who would make the exact same moral decisions as I do about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Phat, posted 11-23-2012 11:21 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 260 of 1221 (681274)
11-24-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Phat
11-23-2012 11:21 PM


Re: Even sheep that think they walk independantly have a shepherd
You dont need to believe that the shepherd is leading you in order to be led by the shepherd.
HUH?
You simply have to do what you know internally is right.
Note what you said; "do what YOU know internally is right."
You may think its your conscience but it is His voice.
And the evidence to support that assertion?
When your conscience tells you to kill gays or destroy the Great Satan it is his voice?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Phat, posted 11-23-2012 11:21 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 261 of 1221 (681300)
11-24-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Straggler
11-23-2012 11:14 AM


Re: X Wthout God
GDR writes:
My view is that God created a world that was designed to be good but with free will the possibility of evil was left open.
Straggler writes:
God has apparently chosen to calibrate the morality-scale scale such that evil exists. Presumably he could have created a scale which includes far worse than evil (lets call it evil++). The scale of man's ability to do wickedness could have been even greater than it is if God had wanted us to have an even greater level of freewill. I mean presumably no man can be as evil as Satan himself (whether Satan is real or just a concept of ultimate evil is irrelevant to this).
So it would seem God has felt it necessary to restrict our freewill in terms of our ability to commit possible evilness. He chose to limit our freedom to just evil.
My point is this - If there is going to be a limit imposed, which there must be, why not stop at indifference rather than evil? Rather than create good and evil why not narrow the scale so that the only possibilities are indifference and escalating degrees of good? You still get freewill but you don't get evil. The worst someone can be is indifferent.
I put it to you that God should have calibrated his scale so as to make evil unnecessary for freewill. We can only conclude that God actually wants us to be able to be evil.
Evil isn't logically necessary, any more than evil++is, for freewill in the way you are asserting.
You say that God could have created a world where indifference is worse than evil. IMHO that is exactly what we have. As I’ve said to Dogmafood morality is about mind and heart. What we do or say flows from our heart’s moral condition. To a degree I think that absolute lack of morality could be defined as total indifference to the suffering of others. (We might however go further and consider those that find pleasure is the suffering of others, and we don’t have to look far for the examples of that.)
At its most basic life is about survival and I agree that in many cases co-operation enhances our chance for our survival but that isn’t what morality is. Using your terms I would say that morality is having a heartset, (if there is such a word), that moves from indifference to others,( or for that matter all of creation), to having a heartset that is primarily concerned for others. If we couldn’t be indifferent then we wouldn’t have the choice to be concerned. It would simply be the way things are and we wouldn’t even know what it means to be concerned for others. When we go in the water we get wet. If we go in the air we get....? It’s just how things are.

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 234 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2012 11:14 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2012 11:08 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 262 of 1221 (681303)
11-24-2012 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dogmafood
11-24-2012 12:00 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
Dogmafood writes:
Consider some action that is amoral in nature. Say an artist painting a picture. Is the good feeling that the artist enjoys from their creation not caused by the same mechanism that causes the good feeling that you get from helping someone who is in need? When they get the picture just right they are rewarded with some sense of satisfaction. We feel good when we do the right thing because that is the way that the mind works in all situations and not just in a moral dilemma.
I don’t deny that we can get a good feeling when we do the right thing but my question is why do we get that good feeling. Also I would add that there is always a tinge of regret because we could have done something for ourselves with our time and money. I think that there are a number of ways to define morality and one might be that we move from seeking self pleasure to seeking pleasure for others.
Dogmafood writes:
I concede that there is no way that I can prove that God did not instil our sense of morality as it is an unfalsifiable idea.
...just as morality as evolving from a non-intelligent non-moral first cause is also unfalsifiable. We all just come to our own subjective conclusions.
Dogmafood writes:
Here is a selflessness challenge. The next time that you are going to send $100 to Uganda send it anonymously to Donald Trump instead. Tell him to enjoy a nice cup of coffee.
That might be a great thing to do. Maybe it would absolutely make his day. (Mind you I think I’ll stick with Uganda.)

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 257 by Dogmafood, posted 11-24-2012 12:00 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Dogmafood, posted 11-24-2012 4:05 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 263 of 1221 (681341)
11-24-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by GDR
11-24-2012 12:42 PM


Re: Selflessness Test
GDR writes:
I don’t deny that we can get a good feeling when we do the right thing but my question is why do we get that good feeling.
Dogmafood writes:
We feel good when we do the right thing because that is the way that the mind works in all situations and not just in a moral dilemma.
Our brains have evolved in such a way that when we behave in such a way that increases our likelihood of survival we are rewarded with a sense of satisfaction. I don't know exactly what those mechanisms are, dopamine receptors I guess.
From wikipedia
quote:
Dopamine plays a major role in the brain system that is responsible for reward-driven learning. Every type of reward that has been studied increases the level of dopamine transmission in the brain, and a variety of highly addictive drugs, including stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine, act directly on the dopamine system
......
GDR writes:
...just as morality as evolving from a non-intelligent non-moral first cause is also unfalsifiable. We all just come to our own subjective conclusions.
If you could show that what we call moral behaviour was actually detrimental to our survival then you could falsify the 'theory'. So I disagree. I don't think that our positions are equal in that regard.
That might be a great thing to do. Maybe it would absolutely make his day. (Mind you I think I’ll stick with Uganda.)
Of course you will and rightfully so and that is my point. I am willing to bet* that you can not bring yourself to do it. Even though the impact on your resources would be exactly the same the returns would be different.
*The bet or the winning of the point in our discussion would count as a return.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 11-24-2012 12:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 11-26-2012 3:01 PM Dogmafood has replied

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


Message 264 of 1221 (681581)
11-26-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dogmafood
11-24-2012 4:05 PM


Re: Selflessness Test
GDR writes:
...just as morality as evolving from a non-intelligent non-moral first cause is also unfalsifiable. We all just come to our own subjective conclusions.
Dogmafood writes:
If you could show that what we call moral behaviour was actually detrimental to our survival then you could falsify the 'theory'. So I disagree. I don't think that ou r positions are equal in that regard.
How about the traditional throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies? There are countless other examples.
Dogmafood writes:
Of course you will and rightfully so and that is my point. I am willing to bet* that you can not bring yourself to do it. Even though the impact on your resources would be exactly the same the returns would be different.
Certainly, because it is a moral choice. We constantly make moral choices in our lives — some big and some small. I contend that there is a fundamental part of our character that balances off the selfish and unselfish sides of who we are. It seems to me, from personal experience, that my first instinct is selfish but then there is another seemingly intangible voice that makes it a choice between following that first instinct or choosing to act unselfishly. I think that in life though, the more we make the unselfish choice the closer we come to having the unselfish choice be instinctive. From a Christian POV I think that it is all about establishing a trajectory based on wanting to do the unselfish thing as opposed to allowing our selfish nature to become entrenched.

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 263 by Dogmafood, posted 11-24-2012 4:05 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dogmafood, posted 11-27-2012 6:40 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 265 of 1221 (681640)
11-27-2012 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by GDR
11-26-2012 3:01 PM


Re: Selflessness Test
How about the traditional throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies? There are countless other examples.
So let me get this right. In a war time situation where millions of people are actively trying to kill each other you are pointing to the 9 or 12 people who sacrificed themselves as evidence that our morality is detrimental to our survival as a species? I would suggest that the millions of dead people are stronger evidence that being completely selfish is much more detrimental to our survival.
It seems that you agree, at least subconsciously, that my position is falsifiable even though, in my opinion, you are unable to falsify it.
If there is a God then it created us as selfish creatures. What we call moral behaviour is selfishness veiled by what appears to be sacrifice. It is simple economics and you have to spend a little capital to make a little profit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 11-26-2012 3:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2012 12:07 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 11-28-2012 2:20 PM Dogmafood has replied

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


Message 266 of 1221 (681867)
11-28-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dawn Bertot
11-23-2012 5:29 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
Dawn writes:
Unfortunately Mr Harris is not the standard by which right and wrong are established. Nor does Mr harris understand how that is established. If indeed you have correctly represented him, he falls way short of understanding Good and Bad
If bad is only that which causes suffering to his species, and he feels no compulsion for the suffering he inflicts on other species, then he cannot correctly state what bad or good actually are
Mr Harris does not qualify as reality in general. It does not benefit a cow to die at all, uchless for his consumption and pleasure. One can quickly see how his so-called morality quickly falls apart into nonsense
You are correct, Mr. Harris is not the standard. His ideas, however, state an objective standard which can be agreed upon by nearly all of society.
You state, "if bad is only that which causes suffering to his species", yet I am not sure that that is clarified anywhere within his ideas. We should not wontonly slaughter cattle, because the benefit of killing every head of cattle we currently have would not outweigh the cost. We would therefore cause more suffering by the cattle, without offsetting that with additional benefits of food. Also, the cattle get easy access to food and mating, so there is some benefit during the time that they are alive.
Also, this does not mean that cattle should be treated poorly or put through unnecessary suffering. Our task should be to make the killing as quick and painless as possible.
Sam Harris' idea does not quickly fall into nonsense, especially with the cattle example you used. If we as humans have treated the cattle well through its life (as we should according to the moral landscape), then the cattle has benefitted from the access to food and shelter and mating during its lifetime. When we send this cattle to the slaughterhouse, you are correct, the cattle does not benefit. However, the hundreds of people who will have meat to eat from the sacrifice of one cattle will benefit, so the benefit outweighs the cost. So, we are sacrificing one thing for the benefit of many. Seems to fit right into the moral landscape that you claim falls into nonsense.
Dawn writes:
Suffering is only suffering when he is not the one served up on a plate. Relative morality is not only self-contradictory, it doesn’t actually have an existence because it is self-contradictory.
Really, you only recognize suffering when it happens to you? I personally have empathy for even those animals that our species must kill, even for the benefit of our survival. I know that they are suffering, but I understand that it is in order to create a larger benefit than the suffering that had to be endured. Again, the sacrifice of one to benefit many increases our standing in the moral landscape.
As per your comment on relative morality, until you can give me an example of an absolute morality (Thou shalt not kill=Thou shalt not kill always) there is no reason for me to trust your subjective idea that an absolute morality even exists.
Dawn writes:
Relative is just that relative. In a world where death and the taking of life is a daily process, murder can have no application where all those entities have equal properties and existence
Yes, Relative is relative, well done! 0 also equals 0!
For the rest of that statement, it makes absolutely no sense. If what you are stating is that murder cannot be claimed when lives are taken, you are wrong. Murder is not a specific definition for any action done in the wild...a Lion does not murder a zebra. Murder is a legal term specifically designed by humans for the crime of one human taking another human's life. If that wasn't your point, you will need to clarify, because I have no idea what you are saying then.
Dawn writes:
You are more than welcome to set up some sort of guidelines, for ones own self preservation, but that falls well short of actual right or wrong, good or bad, muchless morality
You are right that if we took a selfish look at only self-preservation then it would fall short of morality, but that is not what we are doing. As humans our morality is based upon species preservation, not the self. Also, as morality evolved, we have even begun to look into other species preservation. There was no special book that informed us that we should take care of the animals of this world. In fact, if we simply read the Bible, we would still be slaughtering animals left and right because God put them here specifically for our use and nothing else.
You keep claiming that a morality looking specifically at suffering caused versus benefit gained cannot work and yet, it is this idea that has moved us beyond where naturalists just killed animals to study without a care for how many of the species was left.
Your example of the humans and aliens traveling through the event horizon makes no sense as well. Does not seem to apply to the discussion. Unless you are trying to say that bad ideas should be thrown out when they don't conform to reality? If you are saying this, I hesitate to say.....so, Why does God, who has no evidence for his existence, get a bypass? If I had your stance wrong, please clarify it.
Dawn writes:
Here is another example of the subjective and actual non-existence of morality without God. Your walking along a beach and notice a flounder laying on the beach. You walk past it without any real care.
Next you come across a beached whale. Im talking here about a large fish type animal, not a large women, land mammal or buffarillo. Once you see this large fish (whale), you immediately become concerned and call the press. Why? Because he larger, endangered or what?
There is simply no logical way of making this distinction make any rational sense from a right or wrong point of view. We have simply been conditioned in this instance that larger is better or more important. Wait, what?
You are right, we were conditioned from our ancestors, with their religions that told them all the creatures of the Earth are theirs, to not care about animals. However, what I would state is that choosing to walk past the flounder is not a moral action. The individual passing the flounder is allowing suffering where there is no benefit, which would lower the level on the moral landscape. Whereas, if this individual took the time to place the flounder back in the water, he or she did not suffer, the flounder is no longer suffering and our moral landscape is raised. We have decreased total suffering in the world, at least through what we could affect. The same would go for the whale as well, there is no difference. I would state that anyone who walked past the flounder or the whale without taking action is responsible for lowering the moral landscape.
Dawn writes:
At any rate the pack of dogs that come along or the vultures don’t share your concerns, either for the flounder or the whale. Without belief in God, you’ve only been conditioned. In another place or time, you feelings may differ greatly.
If a person, group of people, or a certain society actually believe their morals or ethics are improving or better that some others, they only need to consult reality to know that is not actually the case.
If they believe that their morals are actually, right or wrong, or that they have a way to establish that without a belief in an infinitely wise creator, they only need to consult reality to know that is not actually possible
You are correct, the pack of dogs does not share our concern. However, what would be the response of the dog pack or the vulture? These animals would choose to eat the animal that is dying. They have no method or understanding of how to return the animal to the water. They simply see a meal for themselves when hungry. But there is still a cost benefit ratio that could be looked at. The death of the whale or flounder will feed the wolf pack or vultures allowing for them to alleviate suffering. Similar to the situation with the cattle the death of one can alleviate the suffering of many.
You are right about individuals claiming that their morals are better. But that is because we must look at morality in a cold, dispassionate way. Morality contains so many shades of grey, that we cannot ever completely alleviate suffering and achieve what Sam Harris would call good, no suffering for any creature. But, we can attempt to find ways to increase our moral landscape by lowering what suffering we can, without creating more. We have to understand that suffering in the world must be accepted, and attempt to limit it instead of stop it. As our species increases in number, there is less habitat for other species. Claiming to have a superior morality is pointless, rather individuals should simply be looking for ways to lower suffering.
On your comment about without a creator, again all I can say is that you are shoving God into the explanation. You can see that we are moral beings and you believe in God, so you just close your eyes and go, "Well, God must have done it." However, if we are looking at reality, then we must remove any unevidenced answers. It is irrational to leap to God as the first guess, when the evidence is non-existent that there is even a god. Plus, a group could determine whether their morals are getting better by studying the suffering and benefit that decisions cause. In other words, we can learn from previous mistakes and hone our morality, a process which has been continuing for hundreds of thousands of years...

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 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-23-2012 5:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-01-2012 1:27 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 1221 (681883)
11-28-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dogmafood
11-27-2012 6:40 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
How about the traditional throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies? There are countless other examples.
So let me get this right. In a war time situation where millions of people are actively trying to kill each other you are pointing to the 9 or 12 people who sacrificed themselves as evidence that our morality is detrimental to our survival as a species?
Not that, but it does show that people are capable of selfless actions after a rational reflection - which you've denied is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Dogmafood, posted 11-27-2012 6:40 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:28 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 1221 (681884)
11-28-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Dogmafood
11-22-2012 12:14 AM


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 simple fact that they allow for a rational reflection as a part of morality contradicts you're claim that this is impossible.
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.
Maybe that's because those things aren't necessities like you've made them out to be...
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.
In this study, they've identified both - instinct and reflection. A dual mechanism.
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.
Its not one or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Dogmafood, posted 11-22-2012 12:14 AM Dogmafood has not replied

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


(1)
Message 269 of 1221 (681906)
11-28-2012 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dogmafood
11-27-2012 6:40 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
Dogmafood writes:
So let me get this right. In a war time situation where millions of people are actively trying to kill each other you are pointing to the 9 or 12 people who sacrificed themselves as evidence that our morality is detrimental to our survival as a species? I would suggest that the millions of dead people are stronger evidence that being completely selfish is much more detrimental to our survival.
The fact still remains that the individual sacrificed his life and his ability to reproduce for the life of others. I have heard the argument that it is about co-operation and maintaining the tribe or even the gene pool but you are extending it to the whole human race. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion you would say that individuals at war would not try and kill the enemy.
Dogmafood writes:
It seems that you agree, at least subconsciously, that my position is falsifiable even though, in my opinion, you are unable to falsify it.
IMHO I have falsified it.
Dogmafood writes:
If there is a God then it created us as selfish creatures. What we call moral behaviour is selfishness veiled by what appears to be sacrifice. It is simple economics and you have to s pend a little capital to make a little profit.
Profit isn’t much good to you when you’re dead. I would agree that God did create us as selfish creatures, but with the potential to reject selfishness in favour of selflessness. If we don’t have the ability to be selfish then there would be no such thing as selflessness. We would be no different than the computers we work with. Again, IMHO the fact that we aren’t like our computers is to me a strong indication that we are the product of an intelligent and moral first cause which would infer that the first cause (God) is necessary for morality to exist. That does not mean that belief or faith in God is necessary for morality.

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 265 by Dogmafood, posted 11-27-2012 6:40 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Dogmafood, posted 11-29-2012 3:28 AM GDR has replied
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2012 6:44 AM GDR has replied
 Message 280 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:51 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 270 of 1221 (681966)
11-29-2012 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by GDR
11-28-2012 2:20 PM


Re: Selflessness Test
GDR writes:
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion you would say that individuals at war would not try and kill the enemy.
From this really interesting article
quote:
Only 15 to 20 percent of the American riflemen in combat during World War II would fire at the enemy. Those who would not fire did not run or hidein many cases they were willing to risk greater danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages. They simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges.
quote:
By the time a soldier does kill in combat, he has rehearsed the process so many times that he is able to, at one level, deny to himself that he is actually killing another human being.
You have to remember that with these war scenarios everybody is going out of their fucking mind. We are kind by nature.
edit
IMHO I have falsified it.
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 11-28-2012 2:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 11-30-2012 2:38 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