A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2015, 01:34 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Proof for universal morality;

Core scripture spanning the globe and time is the same in regard to goal, reason, and often, means of attainment, or adherance.

The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?

Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.

Again, it is selfishness and want of reward that has to be removed. If this can be done, then you can see the objective nature of wanting to advance life and better life in general for the sake of continued existence.

If you can see all life as one being or thing made up by the whole then evolution would also be able to be objective.
Does that mean it is now...not in an obvious and honest way, but I think it is a potential that involves things we all have so it's really close.

Morality is for the sake of betterment. Of course without self being input within the equation at all, or to the extent possible, subjectively.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 03:18 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Proof for universal morality;

Core scripture spanning the globe and time is the same in regard to goal, reason, and often, means of attainment, or adherance.

The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?

Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.

Again, it is selfishness and want of reward that has to be removed. If this can be done, then you can see the objective nature of wanting to advance life and better life in general for the sake of continued existence.

If you can see all life as one being or thing made up by the whole then evolution would also be able to be objective.
Does that mean it is now...not in an obvious and honest way, but I think it is a potential that involves things we all have so it's really close.

Morality is for the sake of betterment. Of course without self being input within the equation at all, or to the extent possible, subjectively.

Again, you ignore the bookend part of the beginning and end. What actually are these goals? What is this supposed betterment of/for? What makes betterment descriptively something universally "good?"

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 06:36 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Core scripture spanning the globe and time is the same in regard to goal, reason, and often, means of attainment, or adherance.

Core scripture? WTF does that even mean? Once again you're asserting there's some sort of similarity with religions without acknowledging the CORE DIFFERENCES. This is fundamental ignorance on your part.

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

Oh yes, we want to know all about your knowledge of the brain and it's chemistry, after all, you've already demonstrated your ignorance on a number of subjects, why not demonstrate it in neurology?

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?

For fuck's sake, did you mean Orcas?

Dolphins are violent predators with a predilection for baby killing and rape.


(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.

There is nothing inherently bad with greed. Most western democracies are capitalist which harness this innate characteristic to our benefit. Is it an "objective moral" tendency? Laugh out load

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Again, it is selfishness and want of reward that has to be removed.

You do realize that heaven is a component of major religions, this "want of reward" is part of the scam which you've fallen for.

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If this can be done, then you can see the objective nature of wanting to advance life and better life in general for the sake of continued existence.

Selfishness and the urge to hold on to things (greed) is a natural part of our evolutionary urges.

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If you can see all life as one being or thing made up by the whole then evolution would also be able to be objective.
Does that mean it is now...not in an obvious and honest way, but I think it is a potential that involves things we all have so it's really close.

This is completely incoherent.

(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Morality is for the sake of betterment. Of course without self being input within the equation at all, or to the extent possible, subjectively.

This is completely incoherent.

Why do you continue to post? Do you actually like demonstrating incoherent thoughts and ignorance? Are you doing it for attention?

If you are actually trying to learn something, stop asserting things, stop posting, start reading and learning.

Start here:

GWG's resource thread

Read EVERY SINGLE PAGE, research, read some more and then perhaps you can make intelligent posts.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
31-12-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Proof for universal morality;

You still have not defined what you mean by a universal morality

Quote:Core scripture spanning the globe and time is the same in regard to goal, reason, and often, means of attainment, or adherance.

Your superficial interpretation of scriptures is laughable. That you can read them in such a way to find similarities is hardly surprising; they were all written by humans so they are all going to reflect some commonality. That does not at all point to anything more than human evolution.

Quote:The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

As has already been pointed out, your ignorance on scientific subjects is nearly unbounded. Please provide evidence to support your claims or stop trying to claim that you understand psychology or neurology. Your ignorance on those subjects is not an argument.

Quote:Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?

So you know little about animal behavior. Your ignorance is not an argument.

Quote:Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.

So you know little about child psychology and development. Your ignorance is not an argument.

Quote:Again, it is selfishness and want of reward that has to be removed. If this can be done, then you can see the objective nature of wanting to advance life and better life in general for the sake of continued existence.

Selfishness and desire for reward is a motivating factor and a drive towards improvement. Your simplistic nonsense denies human nature. Your ignorance is not an argument.

Quote:If you can see all life as one being or thing made up by the whole then evolution would also be able to be objective.

The words are English, the sentence is not. I have no idea what you think evolution being objective means. It conveys nothing.

Quote:Does that mean it is now...not in an obvious and honest way, but I think it is a potential that involves things we all have so it's really close.
Morality is for the sake of betterment. Of course without self being input within the equation at all, or to the extent possible, subjectively.

I've read that several times and it is just incoherent.

Pops, none of what you wrote comes close to being proof of anything except your own superficial, and often erroneous, understanding of things. You need help. Get some.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
31-12-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 05:36 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I won't waste my post by directing my question in pop's direction, so my question is to my fellow skeptics. What would an objective morality look like if it actually existed?

Probably not much different than what it looks like now, such overlap in ethical agreements by the major religions, with lip service paid for by agreements such as the UN Declaration of Human rights. "Neuroscience showing that people's brains react the
same way to ethical problems across cultures."

Some rough iterations of the principles of core morality would sound like this:

"“If we set out to express them, we might start out with candidates like these:
 
Don’t cause gratuitous pain to a newborn baby, especially your own.
Protect your children.
If someone does something nice to you, then, other things being equal, you should return the favor if you can.
Other things being equal, people should be treated the same way.
On the whole, people’s being better off is morally preferable to their being worse off.
Beyond a certain point, self-interest becomes selfishness.
If you earn something, you have a right to it.
It’s permissible to restrict complete strangers’ access to your personal possessions.
It’s okay to punish people who intentionally do wrong.
It’s wrong to punish the innocent.”

Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
31-12-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-12-2015 05:36 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I won't waste my post by directing my question in pop's direction, so my question is to my fellow skeptics. What would an objective morality look like if it actually existed?

Probably not much different than what it looks like now, such overlap in ethical agreements by the major religions, with lip service paid for by agreements such as the UN Declaration of Human rights. "Neuroscience showing that people's brains react the
same way to ethical problems across cultures."

Some rough iterations of the principles of core morality would sound like this:

"“If we set out to express them, we might start out with candidates like these:
 
Don’t cause gratuitous pain to a newborn baby, especially your own.
Protect your children.
If someone does something nice to you, then, other things being equal, you should return the favor if you can.
Other things being equal, people should be treated the same way.
On the whole, people’s being better off is morally preferable to their being worse off.
Beyond a certain point, self-interest becomes selfishness.
If you earn something, you have a right to it.
It’s permissible to restrict complete strangers’ access to your personal possessions.
It’s okay to punish people who intentionally do wrong.
It’s wrong to punish the innocent.”

Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.

That indicates that morality has a biological, therefore evolutionary, base. It is not an argument for "objective morality".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
31-12-2015, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2015 08:49 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-12-2015 05:36 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I won't waste my post by directing my question in pop's direction, so my question is to my fellow skeptics. What would an objective morality look like if it actually existed?

Probably not much different than what it looks like now, such overlap in ethical agreements by the major religions, with lip service paid for by agreements such as the UN Declaration of Human rights. "Neuroscience showing that people's brains react the
same way to ethical problems across cultures."

Some rough iterations of the principles of core morality would sound like this:

"“If we set out to express them, we might start out with candidates like these:
 
Don’t cause gratuitous pain to a newborn baby, especially your own.
Protect your children.
If someone does something nice to you, then, other things being equal, you should return the favor if you can.
Other things being equal, people should be treated the same way.
On the whole, people’s being better off is morally preferable to their being worse off.
Beyond a certain point, self-interest becomes selfishness.
If you earn something, you have a right to it.
It’s permissible to restrict complete strangers’ access to your personal possessions.
It’s okay to punish people who intentionally do wrong.
It’s wrong to punish the innocent.”

Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.

I would think that if there was a deity that set some sort of moral standard into the fabric of universal law, then we would see immediate repercussions from violating said law. If murder was that law, then perhaps the murderer would immediately die as a result after murdering someone. This would be something that is demonstrable and repeatable, Karma on steroids, 100% effective at all times.

I think it would be a far different world that we see from that which we currently live in.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  ...
That indicates that morality has a biological, therefore evolutionary, base. It is not an argument for "objective morality".

Don't forget that Tommy's using the definition of 'objective' as being ... hmmm ... 'a subjective collective' (or some such).

(27-12-2015 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Moral absolutism is not contextually dependent, while moral realism can be.
...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 08:35 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I would think that if there was a deity that set some sort of moral standard into the fabric of universal law, then we would see immediate repercussions from violating said law. If murder was that law, then perhaps the murderer would immediately die as a result after murdering someone. This would be something that is demonstrable and repeatable, Karma on steroids, 100% effective at all times.

I think it would be a far different world that we see from that which we currently live in.

Why would that be the case at all? In fact what we do when it comes to immorality, from the holocaust to the lynching, is the suppression of truth, that the actions themselves are built on lies. We live in world where immorality appears as a form of rebellion against what is true.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:14 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 08:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  ...
That indicates that morality has a biological, therefore evolutionary, base. It is not an argument for "objective morality".

Don't forget that Tommy's using the definition of 'objective' as being ... hmmm ... 'a subjective collective' (or some such).

(27-12-2015 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Moral absolutism is not contextually dependent, while moral realism can be.
...

My use of objective here, is the same way we would say "objective" truth.

In fact the arguments against objective morality often presented here and elsewhere, could be reframed and used to argue against objective truth all together.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: