A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2016, 03:39 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 02:18 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 10:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just gonna jump in here to point out that the only species of life that cares about the survival of the species is Homo sapiens, and not all of them do.

.... citation needed. How do we know we're the only species with members that care about the survival of the species? For that matter, by what methodology could that claim be falsified?

Easy test... pick any three species... I'll bet they couldn't even define "species" let alone describe how they care about it.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
01-01-2016, 06:58 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 07:42 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 06:17 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Let's verify that....


What research have you done into the cause and effects of chemical changes in the brain? What references do you have that support the idea that a person's conscience causes chemical changes? How exactly is that measured? How do you quantify "more in-depth" cognition and emotion?


You've already been given a link indicating that the answer is yes, at least sometimes. What research have you done in this area? What references do you have that delineate the frequency and nature of intra-species conflict of cetaceans?


I'd be very interested in any studies that raised children with no positive stimuli. What references do you have that discuss that?

By the way, if raising children and mammals (a strange conjunction since children ARE mammals) without positive stimuli makes them extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good (whatever that is supposed to mean), then it sounds like you are advocating that. It is hard to tell since your writing skills are so poor.

Since you've done the research it should not be hard to provide references that substantiate your claims.
Meant with positive stimuli.

Just spent over an hour copying and pasting many references and articles pertinent to my view. Then backed out by accident. Anyway. I if you are really curious then use the internet.

Most of what I said would be considered common sense if remotely decipherable.

How conveeeenient.

How about you pick one of your claims, just one, and link to two sources that support your assertions, and tell us why and how.

Start with the thing about dolphins and orcas (note correct spelling) never being violent towards other members of their species.

The "remotely decipherable" bit is all on you. If you truly cared about spreading your message, you would take the time to express it coherently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like julep's post
01-01-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 07:42 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Meant with positive stimuli.

I'm going to guess that you are trying to say "I mean this to sound positive" or something along those lines. "Meant with positive stimuli" is gibberish.

Quote:Just spent over an hour copying and pasting many references and articles pertinent to my view. Then backed out by accident. Anyway. I if you are really curious then use the internet.

First, I do not believe you for a second. Second, I am not interested in doing your work for you. You made the claims. You support them.

Quote:Most of what I said would be considered common sense if remotely decipherable.

The one thing I am sure of given your posting history is that what you call "common sense" I would call "incoherent rambling". I have no idea what you intended by appending "if remotely decipherable". Do you even English?

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
01-01-2016, 07:49 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 07:34 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 07:42 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Meant with positive stimuli.

I'm going to guess that you are trying to say "I mean this to sound positive" or something along those lines. "Meant with positive stimuli" is gibberish.

Quote:Just spent over an hour copying and pasting many references and articles pertinent to my view. Then backed out by accident. Anyway. I if you are really curious then use the internet.

First, I do not believe you for a second. Second, I am not interested in doing your work for you. You made the claims. You support them.

Quote:Most of what I said would be considered common sense if remotely decipherable.

The one thing I am sure of given your posting history is that what you call "common sense" I would call "incoherent rambling". I have no idea what you intended by appending "if remotely decipherable". Do you even English?
Frankly I couldn't care less if you ever believe a thing I say.
I will find references that collaborate with my beliefs again, but it will have to be later. My phone is about dead.


H
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 07:49 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Frankly I couldn't care less if you ever believe a thing I say.
I will find references that collaborate with my beliefs again, but it will have to be later. My phone is about dead.

It's corroborate, not collaborate.
Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
01-01-2016, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2016 11:11 AM by Chas.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 02:18 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 10:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just gonna jump in here to point out that the only species of life that cares about the survival of the species is Homo sapiens, and not all of them do.

.... citation needed. How do we know we're the only species with members that care about the survival of the species? For that matter, by what methodology could that claim be falsified?

Citation? Evolutionary theory.

Individuals of all species act in their own interests and some in the interests of their kin.
None even have any knowledge of the extent of their species.

If we see a member of some other species acting against its own interests in a way that benefits its species as a whole, that would falsify it.

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
01-01-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 03:39 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-01-2016 02:18 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... citation needed. How do we know we're the only species with members that care about the survival of the species? For that matter, by what methodology could that claim be falsified?

Easy test... pick any three species... I'll bet they couldn't even define "species" let alone describe how they care about it.

Drinking Beverage

So the linguistic ability to define the concept and describe emotions is prerequisite to caring about the concept of "all the other critters like me"? All that requires is empathy, and we've seen empathetic behavior in most social mammals.

(01-01-2016 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Citation? Evolutionary theory.

Individuals of all species act in their own interests and some in the interests of their kin.
None even have any knowledge of the extent of their species.

Yet this logic occasionally breaks down with humans. Why can't it break down with other species? Let's say there IS a species where individuals have some knowledge of the scope of their extent. Perhaps the species is prevalent over only a small range and so it's possible for individuals to know, if not every other individual, at least a rough sense of where the larger groups/tribes/flocks/packs/whatever are. Or maybe they have a really long-range communication ability, similar to whales.

(01-01-2016 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  If we see a member of some other species acting against its own interests in a way that benefits its species as a whole, that would falsify it.

Like, say, risking its life to confront a predator that threatens the young of its species, even if those aren't its own offspring or the offspring of anyone in its family or social group? Or just confronting those predators on general principle whenever they have sufficient numbers, even at personal risk? We've seen that.

Overall, I'm inclined to agree with the claim that humans are one of the few, and quite possibly the only, species on Earth capable of embracing abstract concepts like the notion of the entire species being endangered by something. I'm just wondering if there is evidence equal to the claim.

(01-01-2016 08:14 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-01-2016 07:49 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Frankly I couldn't care less if you ever believe a thing I say.
I will find references that collaborate with my beliefs again, but it will have to be later. My phone is about dead.

It's corroborate, not collaborate.
Drinking Beverage

... actually, it might be collaborate in the case of his references.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
01-01-2016, 02:31 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 12:45 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... actually, it might be collaborate in the case of his references.

I vote for "nonexistent".

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2016, 02:38 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 12:45 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(01-01-2016 08:14 AM)unfogged Wrote:  It's corroborate, not collaborate.
Drinking Beverage

... actually, it might be collaborate in the case of his references.

There's a definition of collaborate that makes sense in the context "I will find references that collaborate with my beliefs"? The people who created the supposed references may have collaborated with each other but I don't see how a reference itself could collaborate, especially with a belief.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
01-01-2016, 02:42 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(01-01-2016 12:45 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(01-01-2016 03:39 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Easy test... pick any three species... I'll bet they couldn't even define "species" let alone describe how they care about it.

Drinking Beverage

So the linguistic ability to define the concept and describe emotions is prerequisite to caring about the concept of "all the other critters like me"? All that requires is empathy, and we've seen empathetic behavior in most social mammals.

(01-01-2016 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Citation? Evolutionary theory.

Individuals of all species act in their own interests and some in the interests of their kin.
None even have any knowledge of the extent of their species.

Yet this logic occasionally breaks down with humans. Why can't it break down with other species? Let's say there IS a species where individuals have some knowledge of the scope of their extent. Perhaps the species is prevalent over only a small range and so it's possible for individuals to know, if not every other individual, at least a rough sense of where the larger groups/tribes/flocks/packs/whatever are. Or maybe they have a really long-range communication ability, similar to whales.

(01-01-2016 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  If we see a member of some other species acting against its own interests in a way that benefits its species as a whole, that would falsify it.

Like, say, risking its life to confront a predator that threatens the young of its species, even if those aren't its own offspring or the offspring of anyone in its family or social group? Or just confronting those predators on general principle whenever they have sufficient numbers, even at personal risk? We've seen that.

Overall, I'm inclined to agree with the claim that humans are one of the few, and quite possibly the only, species on Earth capable of embracing abstract concepts like the notion of the entire species being endangered by something. I'm just wondering if there is evidence equal to the claim.

You give no evidence that this ever happens, and there is no reason to believe that any other animals have the information gathering ability or cognitive powers to know or care about their species as a whole.

Animal behavior has been studied extensively and these behaviors are not seen, and evolutionary models of selection have been shown to be accurate showing no evidence of it.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: