A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 07:30 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Why don't any of you post something of relevence in reference to the research I didn't do or the references I didn't post, instead of changing the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 07:33 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2016 07:40 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why? We don't perceive objective morality at all. You dream it up thinking that everyone feels the same as you.

It’s not really about the feeling, as much the corresponding beliefs that are found almost universally that are perhaps elicited by them. I didn’t dream them up, my belief in objective morality have existed as far as I can trace it. It’s just the view that arises from our common intuitions, even if these institution have led us to believe in something that’s false. It’s why I keep reiterating the point that either objective morality is real or it’s an illusion.

Another possible alternative, which I’d take it that most folks here wouldn’t be comfortable suggesting, is crediting religion as the source of the beliefs in objective morality, in moral obligation, in a morality that bindings on all parties.

Most people are not atheists, and subscribe to some sort of religious perception of the world, nearly all the major religions hold view of objective morality. And nearly every moral argument, the structure of our moral protest, the opposition to slavery, to lynching, to gay rights, presuppose that morality is objective.

In fact even here, it seems that many folks want to talk out of both sides of their mouth, by trying to preserve a non-exist middle positions that rejects Matt Finney’s Moral Nihilism, and one that rejects objective morality.

Quote:To be objective, morality must be visible to all, testable, measurable. It's not.

That doesn't even make sense. Assuming objective morality is true what we actually expect to find? What would we be measuring? I would assume fmri scans that show that people brains across cultures react in similar ways to ethical problems, would be a "measure"?

"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
03-01-2016, 07:35 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:29 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:16 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The f****** intent is for the continuation of f****** life. If that's a f****** deepity to you, which isn't a real word, then go end your life, because evidently, you feel that life isn't very significant, nor is the intent of it, which, by the way, is to continue.

Why all the aggressiveness?

Here is an 8 minute primer, take the time to watch it, and don’t try to add or subtract from the facts stated in it or restate the definitions. Pretty straight forward.



Don't watch videos. Now is not the place or time. If you would like to link core findings or studies of Darwin, I would be delighted to read them.

Thanks.

Aggression, on my part, in this case, is in retaliation and reciprocation of the general lack of hearing and or understanding that most of you choose to convey.

Regardless, I suppose it isn't needed, but it sure seems like it is at times, bye to the environment here on this forum as it pertains to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 07:36 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(02-01-2016 10:22 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It means that if the altruistic nature of the act is great enough, and wide spread enough then regardless of genetics, it will indeed be most productive for promotion of life.

Not regardless of genetics. You are postulating some kind of external guiding principle or process that none of your references require or provide any evidence for. Species that develop cooperative strategies can do well by continuing to strengthen that cooperation but that requires nothing beyond the blind process of evolution.

Quote:I have repeatedly stated that evolution is not necessarily, not has to be necessarily violent or selfish.

Evolution is neither selfish nor selfless; it has no morals, thoughts, goals, or anything other traits. It is just the process where individuals that happen to have some minor advantage due to random genetic changes tend to have more offspring. Various species have evolved different survival strategies through the blind workings of that process but calling it a strategy is valid only from an external perspective looking back at it. No species intentionally developed one. Nothing you have posted supports the idea of any external entity or guiding force. The only objective standard involved is whether or not enough individuals survive long enough to reproduce.

(02-01-2016 10:25 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  One can have a vague yet clear understanding of things.

You keep using these words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

(02-01-2016 10:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  In evolutionary terms?

The tendacy for life to seek out the best possibly of continued existence be it through direct or indirect means.

"Life" does not seek out anything through any means according to evolutionary theory. There is no evidence of any conscious or unconscious driving force or goal-seeking ability and, more importantly, no need for one.

(02-01-2016 10:50 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-01-2016 10:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is not how evolution works. There is no seeking, there are no goals.

Evolution is the logically certain outcome of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success.
Sounds like the definition. of stagnant to me.

By the way, I didn't insinuate the evolution had a goal, I insinuated that life did.

Nothing Chas said implies stagnation, only that the changes are random. Those that happen to benefit the individual are "selected" in that they tend to get passed on and preserved. Those that happen to harm the individual tend to die out because the individual dies before passing them on. Having a goal and making changes are not mutually exclusive.

As far as "life" having a goal, that is a category error. Living things can have goals. Life is a process, not an entity.

None of what you posted addresses your recent claims anyway. They were:
1. [Conscience] is 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.
2. Do dolphins and [o]rcas fight within their respective species?
3. 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.

The evolution of altruism does bear on that last claim but it explains why individuals act in a way that we would judge as good but does not show that they are "extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good" and I didn't see anything indicating that it has been tested by raising any individuals with no positive stimuli. You appear to have taken valid studies on the development of altruistic tendencies and made unwarranted extrapolations to the science based on nothing more than your own misunderstanding.

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
03-01-2016, 07:42 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(02-01-2016 10:25 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  One can have a vague yet clear understanding of things.

That is a brilliant example of a self-contradictory statement.

Truly master-crafted oxymoronism, there.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Free Thought's post
03-01-2016, 07:43 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:23 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:16 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  No, it’s because your definitions have s**t to do with evolution.

You simply don’t understand the concept, plain and simple, and it shows everytime you attempt at describing it in your own words.
Just cuz my definitions don't excuse violence and selfishness in an enclosed system thinking that it will somehow extend your own genes and that's the whole purpose of life, doesn't mean I don't understand evolution. That's kind of like saying I don't understand Faith just because the rest of the world doesn't understand my point of view on faith. Now why don't all of you flip the f*** out of actually mentioned faith in a discussion we were starting to talk about evolution. You f****** are so close minded I don't know why or how I tolerate you sometimes.

Evolution is the life changing to better fit its habitat.

If that isn't for the intent of continued existence then I'm a fucking moron like most of you think.

Otherwise, most of you need to open your eyes to whom of us is actually being spoon feed bullshit with our blinders on.

Now you’re just acting like a petulant child who doesn’t get his way. Throwing tantrums doesn’t make your personal views on what evolution is and isn’t any more true.

Evolution is a mechanism as Chas pointed out, it doesn’t exhibit any of the anthropomorphisms you keep trying to attach to it.

I have found in my experience that when people start shouting and cussing to try and make their point, they have run out of logical reasons to support their stance, their “intention” is to bully the other side into keeping quiet.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
03-01-2016, 07:44 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:30 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Why don't any of you post something of relevence in reference to the research I didn't do or the references I didn't post, instead of changing the subject.

We didn't change the subject. The stuff you posted is not in question, only your interpretation of it. It doesn't support your woo claims.

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
03-01-2016, 07:52 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Unfogged,

No external anything.


What are you talking about" goal speaking"?

Regardless of if something is instinctual or of cognitive procrsses, it can and does generally still strive to continue existence.


Random and selection are contradictory.


There you go inserting things i didn't say. If life has no purpose then why is it abundant on this particular planet. Go ahead and say chance as if that explains anything at all or is verifiable whatsoever.

Again "no positive stimuli" was a typo. Thought I made that clear, guess not.

My misunderstandug he says.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe the studies on evolution however truthful they may have been under the direction of Charles Darwin, may have, since then, been faulty to excuse or explain the human being as opposd to life in general?

Rhetorical, really.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:44 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:30 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Why don't any of you post something of relevence in reference to the research I didn't do or the references I didn't post, instead of changing the subject.

We didn't change the subject. The stuff you posted is not in question, only your interpretation of it. It doesn't support your woo claims.
What claim is that?

How does what I posted not support universal morality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:23 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:16 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  No, it’s because your definitions have s**t to do with evolution.

You simply don’t understand the concept, plain and simple, and it shows everytime you attempt at describing it in your own words.
Just cuz my definitions don't excuse violence and selfishness in an enclosed system thinking that it will somehow extend your own genes and that's the whole purpose of life, doesn't mean I don't understand evolution. That's kind of like saying I don't understand Faith just because the rest of the world doesn't understand my point of view on faith. Now why don't all of you flip the f*** out of actually mentioned faith in a discussion we were starting to talk about evolution. You f****** are so close minded I don't know why or how I tolerate you sometimes.

Evolution is the life changing to better fit its habitat.

If that isn't for the intent of continued existence then I'm a fucking moron like most of you think.

Otherwise, most of you need to open your eyes to whom of us is actually being spoon feed bullshit with our blinders on.

It isn't intent, it is a mindless algorithm. There is no purpose to evolution.

You are confusing an organism's actions with the process of evolution.

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: