Sure, but the word apple exists and has meaning (that we've assigned to it).
The same goes for subjective moralities but you deny this.
Not to keep beating this point, but u have no hope of demonstrating the word apple is a real thing. It's a contrivance by one biological process, namely you, to another process of connecting letters. As I demonstrated this thing, ie that which you call an apple existed without you giving it a designation. Your designation doesn't give it more meaning, correct? You would admit that atleast
I disagree, for that is what meaning is - what we assign to things as humans.
As far as we are aware, there is no meaning that humans have not assigned.
Why are you so arrogant. Of course the apple has a meaning, it was CREATED for food. It's your designation that doesn't give it more meaning
Bullshit, morals change. We witness that.
No, behavior in a biological fashion changes. You only assume you have the right to give behavior a morality. We're things happening before you got here. Does your designation change their basic biological function
But your "problem" is non-existent - you're just conflating reality with objectiveness and dismissing subjective moralities outright.
Given that subjective moralities do exist, in reality, your "problem" is a non-starter from the get go.
Excuse me. How can I conflate reality. It is what it is. It's you conflating by giving it alleged meaning that don't make it more than it actually is or is not.
Incorrect. They matter in the sense that they describe the qualities of the thing. What doesn't matter is that humans made up the word morality.
Oh I couldn't agree more that it doesn't matter that you made up the word morality. So the quality of taking a primates life, is not murder, but the quality of taking of taking another humans life, is murder. Sounds like humans are making up things as they go along, beyond even words.
I contend that ACTUALLY having meaning comes from inventions of the mind. That previous lifeforms were unable to do this is irrelevant.
Not possible, let me show you why. If a human creates or invents something like a chair. He may be able to give it some meaning that did not already exist. If a human tries to give meaning to something that previously existed, that meaning is only in his mind. Especially when he invents something like morals. This logically can only be an imaginary creation that cannot give more meaning to already existing biological functions. Seriously you have no way of demonstrating this otherwise.
If no moral actually existed previously, then it is only human arrogance to assume it now exists after he comes along. If I ascribe moral meaning to say gravity it doesn't mean it's moral just because I assigned it. Morality is simply an invention like the word apple, it doesn't give more meaning to an already existing biological process. There is no possible way.
There is no "other" existing that only counts as actually existing that human imaginations fall outside of.
Sure there is, IT is WHAT IT is. Why would you disregard this meaning
Contend that non-objective things do exist in reality. You have yet to address this point to me.
So are you saying that things dont actually exist? Things Cleary exist, that's objective. They are what they are and have thier own meaning or purpose, correct, whatever that may be. You can't make them right or wrong with your imaginative contrived verbiage
There is objectivity (which you conflate with reality), and that is different from subjectivity, but both of those things actually do exist in reality.
Of course I conflate objectivity with reality, because reality is objective. What is neither objective or subjective is conflated meanings, that humans arrogantly attribute to biological processes. Of the two positions, mine is the more rational
And this is why words and languages are good analogies for what we are saying about morality. They are both evolving, changeable human inventions. They have no objective reality - but instead are subjectively real. And there is a sufficient degree of common usage that they can be identified and recorded - as written words or as laws, in each case. And just as we have different languages or words, so we have different sets of morality in different societies and times - slavery can be seen as moral in one place or era, and reprehensible in another.
We cannot say that any one morality is better than another, because their subjective reality doesn't need that. There is no absolute morality, and there doesn't need to be one in order for shared group moralities to the exist, be valid and enforced. In just the same way as there is no one perfect language, and there doesn't need to be, in order for shared group languages to exist, be valid and spoken.
Very eloquent and wonderfully stated. However, unlike languages or words, morality carries with it the concepts of right and wrong, evil or just, moral or immoral. If i were to say as some people do, WHO DAT , or ITS COLD UP IN THIS MUG, You might say or know immediately, that I meant, who is that, or its cold outside. You might not argree that his Eubonics, are proper english, But you wouldn't say he was immoral or moral, good or bad, evil or just, correct?
Your Achilies heel here is that you admit that languages and words do not actually exist in reality, hence neither would actual right or wrong, good or bad, making, subjective just another nonexistent reality. Trying to say, at the same time concdrning a single action by Human is both moral and immoral at the same time, which Modulous spends most of his time doing, would make asmuch sense as saying, that there is both proper and improper English on any given statement in english, given the specific expression.
Hence morality and consciousness make more sense or moral sense and correspond more to reality in the context of an infinte God. These areas are understandable in the context of theism. They can only be rationally explained in the context of an absolute morality
Morality derives from our learning, our culture and our evolved brains. Humans didn't invent our own brains, so it is not strictly a human invention.
Right, it's just another biological function to include imaginations, correct?
don't know how you managed to get this from me saying
I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral.
To answer your question: no.
Did you not say that, if one of the parties was deeply hurt, then you see the adultry as immoral. Did I miss that point. To which I repleied, then the other party, that does not see his actions as hurtful, then that would make the adultery, not immoral. Or is it only immoral if one person has an opinion. My implication is that you have reduced the adultery and morality to nonsense and pretty much nonexistent or imaginative, correct. You seem to be giving a response, it doesn't matter it's all a matter of perspective, correct?
I mean there are two parties involved, correct?
I have not claimed otherwise.Igive meaning to things.Yougive meaning to things. Morality doesn't give meaning to things on its own.
And your right back where you started. Trying to demonstrate that subjective is actually a real thing in the areas of right and wrong. Subjective has no meaning except as an imagination, it doesn't exist in the real world, hence:
Does an apple give meaning to itself, or does it need me to give meaning, to be what it is? IOWs, human behavior, is just what it is, correct, biological functions when I Observe it. My imagined meanings applied to it don't really give it more meaning, anymore than the apple, correct?. So if subjective meanings can't really give meanings to exhibited human behavior that I see, then they don't really exist, correct. Or they are really worthless as actually being morality. Or did I miss something? Since every imagination can be different in the area of your Socalled morality, which exists only in the mind, this alone would be sufficient to demonstrate is as not valid an or real
But if we switch it around as you do and say, we'll it has meaning to me because I imagined it, and it affects me. Then we really haven't gave meaning to the human behavior we observe, it's really still just an imagination. To use an illustration, you say that hatred is not immoral, but your imagination of the subjective is actually a moral. Just doesn't make sense Modulous
Since the word apple has no meaning in reality, it would follow that the word subjective, would be less than nothing. If that's possible. Tying to describe morals stricky from the imagination just doesn't cut the mustard
am not trying to give meaning to an objective morality.
I never said you were. What I said was in your system of belief you have no hope of doing that.
Moralities exist. We make them. Like buildings they vary, but there are certain immutable rules that must be followed in creating them. The rules of how to build a building are not laid down by God. The rules of how to construct morality are not laid down by God. The laws of nature provide the constraints, we use our minds to construct them as best we can within those constraints. Sometimes our buildings fall over because we didn't take something into account. That's the way it goes.
It's not possible for subjective morality to exist. If it were you would have easily don't this without contradiction after contradiction. It is in and of itself a logical contradiction.
I understand that you don'tlikethe notion that we are so free, that morality is not, as it were, written in stone, but such is the human condition. The question isn't whether or not you like it, it isn't even whether or not you accept it. The question is: is it true? You have not refuted the truth of this matter, only argued that constructed meaning and constructed morality isn't 'really real'. So be it. If that is the way of things, that is the way of things.
It's not surprising that person that begins believing that subjective morality actually exists, ends with a statement like this. What else can he do or believe. There is actually is no alleged or actual truth in your system for me to refute, that's the point. All I need do is show the fallacy of HOW you came to a false conclusion.
Here is an iorny that I think you missed completely. You will admit that there is a way to proceed rationally to demonstrate the validity or falsity of something, and you claim you have demonstrated that you think you have done that in and with my position. But with same breath subscribe to the idea that there is actually no truth to be known. Your whole system of so called morality is I think a source of this major contradiction. It begins and ends in nonsense and contradiction
You quote a list of fellas that are trying to tell us absolutely that nothing is knowable, especially in the areas of morals, yet they seem to be telling me this with a great degree of certainty. How did you come to the conclusion they were correct? I think they are incorrect. So is there a way to know with certainty which of is correct. ? Or is not true that they are correct, or it doesn't matter either way.
I have 'actually given a reason for having a morality' I have '{established}' any kind of morality for an Atheist or Secular Fundamental Humanist, or nonbeliever.'
Hopefully you see that you agree with me on all major points at this time and we can escape the circle of madness you've taken us on.
If I disagree with the idea that you have given reasons, or demonstrated it in a rational way, is there a way for us to KNOW that or is that subjective as well? So I disagree, i think I have shown that is not logically or rationally possible. So have I established a moral or a truth, with this obvious fact. Or is any of that possible. You'll let me know, ok?
Moralities exist. We make them. Like buildings they vary, but there are certain immutable rules that must be followed in creating them. The rules of how to build a building are not laid down by God. The rules of how to construct morality are not laid down by God. The laws of nature provide the constraints, we use our minds to construct them as best we can within those constraints. Sometimes our buildings fall over because we didn't take something into account. That's the way it goes.
Immutable rules with subjective moralities and they actually do exist? And I'm taking you on a ride? You'll let me know, ok?
I was always under the impression buildings had foundations. You'll let me know, ok
I find it interesting that you only quoted philosophers and ideologies that have a fatalistic view of truth. Why not quote Jesus, who said Truth is knowable and absolute
Well no, fortunately your not the person that sets the rules here, nor do you decide how I go about demonstrating
So you're unable to give an example of an absolutely morality..... How then are we to conclude that it exist?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Not to keep beating this point, but u have no hope of demonstrating the word apple is a real thing.
Sure I do, here is the word apple: --> apple
It's a contrivance by one biological process, namely you, to another process of connecting letters.
Yeah, that's what a word existing means. What are you talking about?
As I demonstrated this thing, ie that which you call an apple existed without you giving it a designation. Your designation doesn't give it more meaning, correct? You would admit that atleast
More meaning? What meaning does an apple have? What do you mean by "meaning"?
Meaning is something that humans create, it is not something inherant to things. What are you talking about?
Of course the apple has a meaning, it was CREATED for food.
Huh? "It was created for food" is not the meaning of "apple". What are you talking about?
Being for food isn't even why there are apples. "Seed transportation vehicle" is a bit closer to the point of an apple.
But that would be closer to a purpose than a meaning.
Excuse me. How can I conflate reality. It is what it is.
Conflation requires two things - what you are conflating is reality with objectivity. You are saying that only objective things are real and exist.
But subjective things also exist and are real.
It's you conflating by giving it alleged meaning that don't make it more than it actually is or is not.
That literally makes no sense in English.
Oh I couldn't agree more that it doesn't matter that you made up the word morality. So the quality of taking a primates life, is not murder, but the quality of taking of taking another humans life, is murder. Sounds like humans are making up things as they go along, beyond even words.
That's what moralities are!
Not possible, let me show you why. If a human creates or invents something like a chair. He may be able to give it some meaning that did not already exist. If a human tries to give meaning to something that previously existed, that meaning is only in his mind.
All meaning is only in our minds. What meanings do things have that are not in our minds?
Rememeber though: "It was created for food" is not the meaning of an apple.
Especially when he invents something like morals.
What is so special in this case?
This logically can only be an imaginary creation that cannot give more meaning to already existing biological functions.
You're typing nonsense.
If no moral actually existed previously, then it is only human arrogance to assume it now exists after he comes along.
Or, moralities aren't anything that wasn't created by humans.
This is just you assuming that moralities must be objective - that is not the case.
If I ascribe moral meaning to say gravity it doesn't mean it's moral just because I assigned it.
What makes something moral then? And how do you know?
There is no "other" existing that only counts as actually existing that human imaginations fall outside of.
Sure there is, IT is WHAT IT is. Why would you disregard this meaning
"What it is" is the property of its existence. What it means is something different. What it means is assigned to it by human minds.
Contend that non-objective things do exist in reality. You have yet to address this point to me.
So are you saying that things dont actually exist?
I said the exact opposite of that - that things, even subjective things, do exist.
Things Cleary exist, that's objective. They are what they are and have thier own meaning or purpose, correct, whatever that may be.
Purpose and meaning are different things. And things don't have meanings that human minds have not assigned to them.
You can't make them right or wrong with your imaginative contrived verbiage
The only way that we are aware of things being right or wrong is by us creating those meanings.
Of course I conflate objectivity with reality, because reality is objective.
Objective reality contains subjectivity.
What is neither objective or subjective is conflated meanings, that humans arrogantly attribute to biological processes.
Did you not say that, if one of the parties was deeply hurt, then you see the adultry as immoral. Did I miss that point.
That is correct.
To which I repleied, then the other party, that does not see his actions as hurtful, then that would make the adultery, not immoral.
In this case, one of the stakeholders was deeply hurt, and thus it would be immoral, in my opinion. As I said
If the stakeholders are fine with with the extra-marital affair, if the consequences are non-exsitent, I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral. If one person is deeply hurt by the adultery, if they feel their trust was betrayed etc., then I would say it is immoral.
If ALL stakeholders are fine with it. Not immoral. If even ONE stakeholder is not fine with it. Is immoral.
A simplification, but apparently this proved a challenge so I'm glad I kept it simple.
My implication is that you have reduced the adultery and morality to nonsense and pretty much nonexistent or imaginative, correct.
Incorrect.
You seem to be giving a response, it doesn't matter it's all a matter of perspective, correct?
It matters, or doesn't matter, to the stakeholders. Yes, it's all a matter of perspective.
I mean there are two parties involved, correct?
I'm pretty sure adultery usually requires at least three parties.
And your right back where you started.
Yes, that's why I keep saying you are going around in circles. I state my position, you get it wrong, so I say it again, you say it wrong. Every time I get off the starting blocks you want us to return to them.
Does an apple give meaning to itself, or does it need me to give meaning, to be what it is?
Neither. It is what it is independent of any meaning that may or may not be given to it by you.
IOWs, human behavior, is just what it is, correct, biological functions when I Observe it.
Your observation is irrelevant to what it is. Your observation is only required to have a subjective (that is YOUR) perspective on it.
My imagined meanings applied to it don't really give it more meaning, anymore than the apple, correct?.
Your meanings, my meanings - our meanings are the only meanings anything has. An apple or a behaviour has no intrinsic meaning other than that which people give them.
So if subjective meanings can't really give meanings to exhibited human behavior that I see, then they don't really exist, correct
What do you mean 'really exist'? Meaning isn't a property of the object or action if that's what you mean.
Or they are really worthless as actually being morality. Or did I miss something?
They have whatever worth you think they have. Yes, you seem to missing things.
Since every imagination can be different in the area of your Socalled morality, which exists only in the mind, this alone would be sufficient to demonstrate is as not valid an or real
I don't see why they are not valid or real as a result.
But if we switch it around as you do and say, we'll it has meaning to me because I imagined it, and it affects me. Then we really haven't gave meaning to the human behavior we observe, it's really still just an imagination.
Well that's what meaning is. It is the interpretation of a mind. Without minds, there is no meaning. As I've repeatedly said.
To use an illustration, you say that hatred is not immoral, but your imagination of the subjective is actually a moral.
No.
Since the word apple has no meaning in reality, it would follow that the word subjective, would be less than nothing.
No, that doesn't follow at all.
Tying to describe morals stricky from the imagination just doesn't cut the mustard
As I have said and explained, ' Humans didn't invent our own brains, so it is not strictly a human invention.'
I never said you were. What I said was in your system of belief you have no hope of doing that.
Agreed: I don't need to.
It's not possible for subjective morality to exist.
And yet it is observed that it does. I submit therefore your framework of what is possible is flawed.
There is actually is no alleged or actual truth in your system for me to refute, that's the point.
False. Whether or not meaning is given to us by a divine being or if it is given by ourselves is an issue which has a truth value.
You will admit that there is a way to proceed rationally to demonstrate the validity or falsity of something, and you claim you have demonstrated that you think you have done that in and with my position. But with same breath subscribe to the idea that there is actually no truth to be known.
I don't subscribe to the diea there is no truth to be known. I subscribe to the opposite view, as I've said repeatedly. You really should argue against my position rather than the cartoon you created in your mind before this thread started.
I think they are incorrect. So is there a way to know with certainty which of is correct. ?
You were the one that started the thread, it's your job to make this case.
I am merely telling you what the argument you are arguing against actually is, you tell me if you can prove it false. The 'fellas' you talk of are philosophers, you should read their work as they provide an excellent example in how to construct an argument in a clear fashion.
If I disagree with the idea that you have given reasons, or demonstrated it in a rational way, is there a way for us to KNOW that or is that subjective as well?
Where knowledge is always tentative, yes. I have evidence and mathematics (ie logic) to back up my position that evolution can explain animal behaviour, that learning and culture can explain more nuanced behaviours, and opinions about those behaviours. On the other hand you have said 'its a good start' and stated that you have never tried to say that I couldn't do these things. While also saying that I couldn't explain it and that I haven't started. Hardly a consistent position.
Immutable rules with subjective moralities and they actually do exist?
Rules don't have moralities. Subjective moralities exist within a system of rules. We are constrained by our biology.
I was always under the impression buildings had foundations. You'll let me know, ok
Yes, having a firm foundation is one of the rules we tend to abide by when building a building. When we don't, they topple over. The same is true of moralities.
I find it interesting that you only quoted philosophers and ideologies that have a fatalistic view of truth. Why not quote Jesus, who said Truth is knowable and absolute
I don't see the utility in quoting Jesus. In so far as the truth is knowable and absolute, I agree with him. There are objective facts, and we can know them. However, 'killing a person is wrong' is simply neither true statement nor a false one on its own. Just like 'Mozart is the best composer', 'Lasagne is the tastiest dish' are also not true or false.
Your Achilies heel here is that you admit that languages and words do not actually exist in reality
Ah, but that is not what I said. I said "I don't think words have a reality outside of our perception." Words and language do have a reality - they have a subjective reality which is shared amongst a group of us.
The English language is a real language - it really exists - and you and I are conversing in it.
If you seek to dismiss the reality and existence of subjective morality, because it's not painted green and affixed to a pole, then you have to dismiss the reality and existence of words and languages. If subjective concepts are non-existent realities, to use your expression, how is it that we are conversing ?
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
If you copy from "peek mode" then you get the coding for bullets, numbering, etc etc.
Well not only have I addressed them, but I have refuted each one of them. ...
Well, no, you haven't, so stop pretending you have. The stuff you raise is irrelevant -- gigo. It's a pile of red herring fallacies to divert the thread away from the fact that Secular Morals can and have been Rationally Explained
But for thrills and spills I'll go over it once more again ...
... Let me give you a couple of examples. Your point number 1. Self interest is contradictory to the very idea of morality, because it is just another way of describing survival of the fittest. ...
And you are wrong again: that is not contradictory, it is explanatory, and evolution is more than your simplistic "survival of the fittest" straw man (which is also wrong, as has been explained. You won't move forward if you don't correct your wrong arguments. Evolution is the survival of those able to survive long enough to breed, which includes a lot more than "the fittest" ... because it also includes all those barely fit enough to have offspring).
One down, refuted, falsified. Again.
... Secondly, if the golden rule only applies to humans as you indicate it does, ...
Except that, secondly, I didn't indicate that -- you keep repeating this false statement. Learn what people say, respond to that, and your argument may improve.
... then, murder, is not murder when you take the life of an animal. If you would only answer honestly why you know it's not murder when you take an animals life, then you would know God exists and his morality is absolute. You know this instinctively,, not by evolution but by the law God put in you ...
Irrelevant hogwash once again, because your premise is a false representation of may position, a straw man.
And also false because your conclusions don't follow from your arguments.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
Your point no. 2. You first need to demonstrate that such a thing exists ...
It ("Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.") has been observed, therefore it exists.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... and that it doesn't just apply to humans, to be consistent. ...
Again, this has been discussed -- because morality is subjective (a) different people will see things differently, some may only apply morals to their immediate family while others may apply it to all living things. That is their choice, not yours.
Nor does it need to be consistent, it can change over time and it can change in different social environments.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... Because if there is no God and no absolute morality,
Again, there is no absolute morality, that is validated by the numerous observed subjective moralities around the world and down through time that differ from place to place and time to time.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... then your so called morality would need to apply to all species. ...
Again, this is your conclusion, not reality. Morality doesn't need to apply to any specific behavior or other -- that would be an absolute morality. You keep trying to argue against subjective morality on the grounds it isn't absolute. Faulty Logic again, GIGO.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... Since it is clear it does not, as you freely admit, your bogged down in irrational nonsense. Claiming you have a morality, calling things murder, then killing and eating animals, is either murder or it is not. In either case you would need to explain your rational. Obviously you cannot.
Except that I have explained it several times. Morality is subjective. Some people ride horses, some people eat them, both consider their actions moral. Again, please stop arguing that subjective morality is false because it is not absolute -- that is beating a dead horse and then having sex with it hoping for offspring.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
Your point no. 5. Your free to describe morality as memes or synergy, but you would first need to show a chain of causality from the brain to this synergy. It's obvious that science cannot provide this chain of causality. IOWs, science doesn't have an explanation of how the brain produces consciouness. If it did it would have been demonstrated a long time ago. ...
Nope, I simply need to observe it. It is observed, it exists. I don't need to describe in excruciating detail how a table is made, where the wood comes from, where the fasteners come from, how the parts are shaped and put together and how it came to be in the room -- I can observe that it is there. I can also remember putting tables together, and thus be familiar with the process, but that is not necessary to the observation that there is a table in the room.
This too has been discussed previously. Your argument is like a scratchy record, never getting anywhere because it keeps skipping back to things that have already been discussed, arguments that still remain refuted. GIGO.
... Theism by its evidences of God's existence demonstrates how consciouness exists and came into existence. Theism again in this instance corresponds to what we see in reality. In this instance consciouness and and indeed morality. ...
Nope. Again you have made a completely unevidenced argument based only on a leap of faith. We observe consciousness, we don't need to assume god/s are involved.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... Hence from a logical progression, morality can only make sense in the existence of God.
Which, sadly for you, shows that either your god is very confused about which morality to infuse into what person when, OR the evidence of variation from person to person shows that this has not happened.
GIGO
Right, now if you could just show us this chain from biology to consciouness. This should be interesting. Also, since you assert that primates have self-consciouness, would it be murder, to kill one and eat it? If one primate kills another, is it murder. Maybe I u could answer some of these questions.
You keep repeating these false argument, hoping for different answers, but they don't get any better when re-heated for the third or fourth time, this is still GIGO.
Do I need to go on, it appears you have your hands full. I'll wait for your responses to my rebutals.
The only trouble I have, is to keep from ROFLOLing at your pathetic attempts to divert the discussion into irrelevant rabbit holes, desperate to avoid actually dealing with the fact that:
Message 196: Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
What you have not addressed:
Morals are subjective, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals are a type of memes, ... non-genetic information passed from generation to generation, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals have evolved over time, ... changing over time to adapt to new social needs, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals are a consensus control on social behavior, ... there is variation from person to person, but there is general consistency within any one cultural\social group, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals act to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, ... so energy is not wasted on fights, and individuals are not injured or killed, ... so that individuals that behave according to these rules have a better chance to survive and breed within the group than those that don't (ie - it is in their enlightened self-interest to behave), ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation, ... by having healthy and productive individuals working together to common ends, ... that game theory explains these advantages for group behavior, ... that evolution acts as a large multi-trial computer test, and the "programs" that provide advantage to the species to survive and reproduce will thrive, while those that don't will fade, and thereby evolution eventually comes to the same conclusion as game theory, through extensive long term trial and error. ... and all this is also observed to be true
We observe these behaviors, we label some "good" and some "bad" and we change those labels when necessary ... because we recognize they need to change and adapt as the social group changes and adapts.
And we call them morals, as a general label for this kind of observed social behavior. They aren't magic, or revealed, or supernatural, they are just behaviors that we agree on, a social contract for in-group behavior.
This Rationally explains Secular Morals. Q.E.D.
And this is why I keep saying you have not addressed my argument.
So to help you out, let me ask you a single question for you to answer (instead of wasting more bandwidth on your spurious and irrelevant arguments) -- let's keep it simple:
Do you AGREE that morals are subjective? YES or NO
So you're unable to give an example of an absolutely morality..... How then are we to conclude that it exist?
Why would you assume I was unable to give you an example of absolute morality. I have already. Since consciouness and conscience Cleary exists, we know this because we can observe it, correct? I further demonstrated that it could not come from purely naturalistic processes. Since every person would be able to have an opinion on any given human action, it follows logically that subjective morality , as described by u fellas could be nothing more than just another imagination proceeding from other biological processess. Hence there is no way to actually observe what is actually right and wrong from that system. Hence, no morality at all
Since however, we know that consciouness and conscience do exist and we can KNOW ABSOLUTELY that somethings are wrong, whether we are taught this or not, it follows logically that this knowledge, cannot come from purely naturalistic processess..
Secondly, we KNOW ABSOLUTLEY that Specific Revelation as contained in the Judeo-Christian, doctrines, corresponds to what we see in human nature and in reality. IOWS it explains in detail, what we are, how and why we do things. It explains that stealing is absolutely always immoral, regardless of the circumstances. In other words absolute morality. It makes sense of morality. It explains that our morality is ABSOLUTE in reality and comes from a source outside the human I mind
Last but not least it makes morality consistent and rational. Not just as an explanation, but in a rational way. Atheism and or humanism are for ever lost in nonsense and contractictory rhetoric trying not only to have morality but be consistent and explain it in any rational way.
So why my friend did you assume I was unable to show you absolute morality and how and why it exists.
Moremeaning? What meaning does an apple have? What do you mean by "meaning"?
Meaning is something that humans create, it is not something inherant to things. What are you talking about?
Well here's what I mean. Before humans came along did THIS FRUIT you describe as an apple already exist? Is it's existence dependent upon your description? Does your imaginary description of it give it more meaning? Well of course we could ask the same questions concerning another made up word called morality. NCE, this might come as a shock to you but things in reality do not get thier meaning from the meaning you pour into them
The meaning or purpose of a tree is not waiting for your arbitrary descriptions. Hence human behavior in a purely naruralistic existence, doesn't become Right or Wrong, because you've given it those descriptions. Hence Atheism has no way of explaining biological human behavior in any rational way. An it certainly doesn't have the ability to classify examples of human behavior or animal behavior as good or bad.
Now watch the word subjective or morality can't give reality any more meaning, that it doesn't already have or possess, an more than the word apple. Morality is an imaginary thing, outside of away from the context of an infinite God
Conflation requires two things - what you are conflating is realitywithobjectivity. You are saying that only objective things are real and exist.
But subjective things also exist and are real.
Wow I can't believe you can't see this. In a purely naturalistic enviornment, there's only existence and reality. There's really no such thing as objective and subjective. If we choose to describe that which exists as objective, which is not necessary for it to be real. But if we do, that's the best you can do. Because no such things as morality would actually exist in reality. Therefore there would be no need to use the word subjective to begin with, because the word objective, is not even necessary. There's just reality.
That's what moralities are!
Again, moralities are made up things. Now watch, they DO NOT give reality more meaning. So if you have one biological process, namely you, throwing made up terms that have no reality, to describe another biological process, It doesn't make it better or worse than it actually is.
Now think about it conversely. If you a biological process, namely, u makes up terms like murder, to describe what is happening in reality, it doesn't make it murder and it sure doesn't give the biological process a quality of, now watch, good or bad, moral or immoral. These things would have to exist as realities for them be real. One biological process can not give another biological process the quality of moral or immoral
Your problem is further complicated in the fact that you describe the same biological processess in animals, as less than murder. It doesn't help you to say well we are more intelligent. If that's the case then you would also know that your behavior twords animals should also be characterized as murder. The best you or they have is survival of the fittest. Certainly no morality
The only way that we are aware of things being right or wrong is by us creating those meanings.
Wrong. Right and wrong have to do with truth. It was already absolutely true that things existed and it was a truth that gravity existed as a valid principle, before humans arrived. You only discovered it. Right and wrong would have to have already existed before you arrived for them to be actual right and wrong. This is Cleary evidenced in the fact that 1000 individuals could have 1000 different concepts of what is right on any given human behavior. That is the classic illustration of something NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING, except in the imagination. Hence no actual right or wrong, just perception.
But now let's say that two people had differing views on whether, things actually exist or not. One said yes the other said no. Well there's a way for us to know the truth in this case. Because that truth already exists. But if what is right and wrong are a product of the imagination and don't already exist, then of course there's no way to know at all.
Objective reality contains subjectivity.
Well no it doesnt. If you will remember these again are made up terms. There's only reality. Me using the word objective doesn't give reality more meaning. It would still just be reality and existent, whether I thought is was there or not. Subjective in the areas of right and wrong can't exist for the reasons I've already demonstrated.
In this case, one of the stakeholders was deeply hurt, and thus it would be immoral, in my opinion. As I said
If the stakeholders are fine with with the extra-marital affair, if the consequences are non-exsitent, I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral. If one person is deeply hurt by the adultery, if they feel their trust was betrayed etc., then I would say it is immoral.
If ALL stakeholders are fine with it. Not immoral. If even ONE stakeholder is not fine with it. Is immoral.
A simplification, but apparently this proved a challenge so I'm glad I kept it simple.
Great that's pretty much what I assumed you reaching for. So if there are two human beings, one wishes to live, the other thinks it's perfectly alright to take his life, no harm done, from the assailants perspective, but one is Cleary hurt by the action, how would we determine if the action is moral or immoral. Bearing in mind we can't just take the victims view into consideration, because that would be inconsistent in establishing an actual moral, correct? Since all persons perspectives are potential morals, correct?
Neither. It is what it is independent of any meaning that may or may not be given to it by you.
So it would follow that, your descriptions of what a morality actually are, in reality , are actually nonexistent, or have no real application to reality. Since your descriptions of human actions really can't give them more meaning, i see no way for them to have meaning outside your imagination. Hence,, no morality in reality. But if you think that your imaginations of what are right or wrong, actually exist outside of your imaginations, you've yet to demonstrate it
If you say it has meaning to you, but it has a totally different meaning to someone else, this would be actually be the meaning of something NOT real, correct?. Or at best useless as a standard. Or at worst, no hope of being an actual right or wrong, correct?
Your meanings, my meanings - our meanings are the only meanings anything has. An apple or a behaviour has no intrinsic meaning other than that which people give them.
Since, as you have indicated, we didn't create our brains, it would then follow that our brains or meanings coming from our brains, have no intrinsic meaning. I think your probably starting to see why, even by your own intimations, the Socalled subjective morality has an even less chance of actually having meaning, correct?
So what chance do our brains have of actually creating meaning in what is actually right or wrong. Since the object doesn't have an actual intrinsic meaning?
What do you mean 'really exist'? Meaning isn't a property of the object or action if that's what you mean.
I simply mean that my imaginations or yours don't make human behavior actually more than what it is, a biological function, correctI. If I hit you in the back of the head with a pipe, then you ascribe some imaginary meaning to it like oh crap that is bad, you would just be making stuff up out of your head correct. There could be no actual right or wrong in it , correct. Hence no actual moral
Well that's what meaning is. It is the interpretation of a mind. Without minds, there is no meaning. As I've repeatedly said.
Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it valid. Since individual things are a part of the entire universe, it would follow that you would need to know everything to know it has no meaning. So saying absolutely there is no meaning, has no meaning, correct? So, if this is true, it follows that you have little or no chance of knowing what is moral or immoral.
And yet it is observed that it does. I submit therefore your framework of what is possible is flawed.
But this is what you need to do, give me an example of something that is actually subjectively in the area of morality. Give me an example of something that will not just reduce itself to just more biological behavior.
Where knowledge is always tentative, yes. I have evidence and mathematics (ie logic) to back up my position that evolution can explain animal behaviour, that learning and culture can explain more nuanced behaviours, and opinions about those behaviours. On the other hand you have said 'its a good start' and stated that you have never tried to say that I couldn't do these things. While also saying that I couldn't explain it and that I haven't started. Hardly a consistent position.
Well no. I said you couldn't explain morals. Since behaviors in the natural kingdom, human or animal, have no hope of ever being right wrong, good or bad, actually, your have still to this point failed to demonstrate my proposition as false. When I said it was a good start, I meant atleast you were giving it a try. Applying morals to the human animal in one way and the animal kingdom another way, is alone itself, enough to show that it is an impossible task. Since we are just all animals, correct?
Rules don't have moralities. Subjective moralities exist within a system of rules. We are constrained by our biology.
And of course without even being aware of it you just set up a moral absolute
That's humorous, since you don't even apply the same rules to the animal kingdom in your strictly biological constraints. I think it is should be obvious to even the simplest of minds that you actually dont have morals, given the mix and match, hodge podge of, jumbled words, like those in your above statement. We could reverse your words and say, moralities don't have rules, there subjective and it would make as about as much sense.
I am merely telling you what the argument you are arguing against actually is, you tell me if you can prove it false. The 'fellas' you talk of are philosophers, you should read their work as they provide an excellent example in how to construct an argument in a clear fashion.
I'm fully aware of what the argument is, that I'm arguing against. It's a self defeating proposition. It can't even get started, as I've demonstrated, just above. I've read most of them, your doing about as good a job as they would.
I don't see the utility in quoting Jesus. In so far as the truth is knowable and absolute, I agree with him. There are objective facts, and we can know them. However, 'killing a person is. wrong' is simply neither true statement nor a false one on its own. Just like 'Mozart is the best composer', 'Lasagne is the tastiest dish' are also not true or false.
The mere fact that you would equate killing a person with some irrelevant decision as to whether, some composer is the best and a food is good, speaks volumes objective out your values and Belief system. It's perverse and insane. This is evidenced by the fact that, you would think a person should be imprisoned for murder and not for calling Mozart the best , if you disagreed. Your comparison is irrational and dishonest. Which points up the fact that morals clearly are not subjective.
So it seems you don't a gree with Jesus since he was speaking of moral absolutes, not facts in general or whether he liked Bethlehem or Naza'reth, one over the other. Jesus would not make the irrational mistake of comparing likes and dislikes with actual moral systems. I guess that is the best your system can provide.
If you seek to dismiss the reality and existence of subjective morality, because it's not painted green and affixed to a pole, then you have to dismiss the reality and existence of words and languages. If subjective concepts are non-existent realities, to use your expression, how is it that we are conversing ?
Well no, here's why. Even though Modulous is a little more articulate than you make his and RAZD same mistake. By trying to compare human languages with violent human behavior, you give yourself away that you actually DONT believe morals are subjective. Certainly you wouldn't imprison someone no matter how poorly or incorrectly they used or misused the English language, but you would if they came up a put a pipe to the back of your wife's head. When you make this distinction, clear distinction between languages and human behaviors, you show that you know that some actions are absolutely Moral or immoral.
You can pretend in an argument, there is no distinction, but there will never be a time down the road where the Nazis behavior will be characterized as moral or ok
This is like asking if I agree that things dont exist. It's a nonsensical question which requires no answer. There is no such thing as subjective, muchless subjective morality when simply describing animal or human behaviors. Since they are just biological functions, then there would be no right or wrong good or bad, moral or immoral. Since reality will not allow you a right or a wrong, in or out of the animal kingdom, reason and rational, will not allow you a morality. Your free to imagine one, but that is all it will be is your imagination
Memes and synergy are just other words to describe consciouness. Since it it clear you cannot explain how and why consciouness is here, it doubtless you can explain memes and synergy. Synergy is a word like Karma or Fate it doesn't meaning anything.
Some people ride horses, some people eat them, both consider their actions moral.
Right. Some people like talking to other people some people like killing and eating other people, this is why humans and animals cannot decide what is moral and shouldn't try. Because they end up sounding like you
So why my friend did you assume I was unable to show you absolute morality and how and why it exists.
Because, my friend, so far you have failed to provide a single example of an absolute morality. Show me one, it should be simple enough. What's the problem?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
More meaning? What meaning does an apple have? What do you mean by "meaning"?
Meaning is something that humans create, it is not something inherant to things. What are you talking about?
Well here's what I mean. Before humans came along did THIS FRUIT you describe as an apple already exist? Is it's existence dependent upon your description?
Yes, it existed. And no, its existence is not dependent upon my description. What does that have to do with what its meaning is?
Are you saying that simply its existence, itself, is its meaning? That's not what the word "meaning" means.
Does your imaginary description of it give it more meaning?
Sure, it absolutely can.
An apple can be symbolic of many things:
the forbidden fruit of Genesis
a gift for a teacher
a computer/software company
An apple could not have meant those things before humans came along and imagined/invented them, so our imaginary descriptions are capable of giving objective things more meaning.
Well of course we could ask the same questions concerning another made up word called morality. NCE, this might come as a shock to you but things in reality do not get thier meaning from the meaning you pour into them
And apparently you are unable to tell me what a meaning of a thing is - other than the thing's existence. Can you give me an example of the meaning of some object that is not something that a human imagined?
The meaning or purpose of a tree is not waiting for your arbitrary descriptions.
Meaning and purpose are different things.
So, what is the meaning of a tree? What is the purpose of a tree?
Hence human behavior in a purely naruralistic existence, doesn't become Right or Wrong, because you've given it those descriptions.
Or, the only way that a behavior becomes right or wrong is when us humans give it those descriptions.
Who knows?
Hence Atheism has no way of explaining biological human behavior in any rational way.
That is not a valid conclusion from your premises. Not to mention that your premises are wrong. Too, a rational explanation, from an atheistic perspective, for morality has been provided - your only response so far boils down to "that's not real".
Now watch the word subjective or morality can't give reality any more meaning, that it doesn't already have or possess, an more than the word apple.
That depends on what you are talking about when you say "meaning"? So what is it?
Wow I can't believe you can't see this. In a purely naturalistic enviornment, there's only existence and reality. There's really no such thing as objective and subjective.
That is simply not true. And we've been over this.
Existence and reality - they are the universe. In the universe, there exists a real human. In that human there exists a real brain. In that brain exists a real mind. In that mind exists real subjective experiences. Those subjective experiences are in the universe, and the exist and are real.
If we choose to describe that which exists as objective, which is not necessary for it to be real. But if we do, that's the best you can do. Because no such things as morality would actually exist in reality. Therefore there would be no need to use the word subjective to begin with, because the word objective, is not even necessary. There's just reality.
There's no reason to butcher the English language just so you can have a point to make. Subjective experiences exist in reality - that's a true statement in English.
Again, moralities are made up things. Now watch, they DO NOT give reality more meaning.
Well I say they do. Now what?
In fact, our ability to give meaning to our behaviors is one of the things that separates us from the other animals. It has allowed us to civilize ourselves.
So if you have one biological process, namely you, throwing made up terms that have no reality, to describe another biological process, It doesn't make it better or worse than it actually is.
Except when it does. It isn't necessary, but it can and does happen.
You mentioned adultery before - before we coined the term it wasn't a thing. But perhaps when one human "cheated" on their partner, they observed that it made their partner upset and that made them feel bad about it. So, they decide that it was a bad things to do and choose to avoid it in the future. They may create a term for the behavior, and then tell others that they shouldn't do it because it makes others feel badly. And viola, there's a piece of a morality - invented by a human, adding meaning to world, and existing in reality. And also not objective.
Now think about it conversely. If you a biological process, namely, u makes up terms like murder, to describe what is happening in reality, it doesn't make it murder and it sure doesn't give the biological process a quality of, now watch, good or bad, moral or immoral.
Or, that is all that having the quality of good or bad, moral or immoral, behavior is - a person making up a term to describe what is happening in reality.
Who knows?
These things would have to exist as realities for them be real. One biological process can not give another biological process the quality of moral or immoral
Or, that's all that being moral or immoral is - one biological process giving another process a quality.
Who knows?
Wrong. Right and wrong have to do with truth.
Do you have an example?
You said that "stealing is always wrong", but what if you need to feed a starving person and there is no other way?
Do you just discount that as not stealing? If so, then "stealing is always wrong" is just a tautology that doesn't provide us any additional information - for the question then just becomes when is it stealing and when is it not?
It was already absolutely true that things existed and it was a truth that gravity existed as a valid principle, before humans arrived.
But that is objective and not comparable. Can you give an example of something else that is subjective, like morality, that already existed before humans arrived?
You only discovered it. Right and wrong would have to have already existed before you arrived for them to be actual right and wrong.
No, that's not true. Perhaps right and wrong are human inventions after all. Who knows?
This is Cleary evidenced in the fact that 1000 individuals could have 1000 different concepts of what is right on any given human behavior. That is the classic illustration of something NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING, except in the imagination. Hence no actual right or wrong, just perception.
Yes, for the nth time, that is what it means to be subjective. That is not the same as not existing. You have yet to address this point besides outright denial.
But now let's say that two people had differing views on whether, things actually exist or not. One said yes the other said no. Well there's a way for us to know the truth in this case.
Consensus and/or consilience - they allow us to know things as much as we can know anything.
Because that truth already exists.
But you don't know that and have no way of showing it.
But if what is right and wrong are a product of the imagination and don't already exist, then of course there's no way to know at all.
It can be determined.
Objective reality contains subjectivity.
Well no it doesnt. If you will remember these again are made up terms.
If the only way for you to make your point is to destroy the English language and hop on a slippery slope to solipsism, then your argument was defeated before you even began.
There's only reality. Me using the word objective doesn't give reality more meaning. It would still just be reality and existent, whether I thought is was there or not. Subjective in the areas of right and wrong can't exist for the reasons I've already demonstrated.
™ Version 4.2