A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:52 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  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?

First, Darwin didn’t “direct”, he explained observable nature.

As for what has been discovered and learned since the publication of Darwin’s Origin and Descent has only confirmed that the Theory of Evolution is true.

I don’t understand how a human being is not a subset of “life in general”. What point are you trying to make?

“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, 09:07 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
I have to hold out hope that you guys are continuing to try to teach Pops something when, in fact, you are writing your responses in hopes that someone with the ability to grasp what you are saying is reading.

Pops either can't or won't learn anything from your efforts.

Carry on.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Anjele's post
03-01-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 08:45 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:52 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  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?

First, Darwin didn’t “direct”, he explained observable nature.

As for what has been discovered and learned since the publication of Darwin’s Origin and Descent has only confirmed that the Theory of Evolution is true.

I don’t understand how a human being is not a subset of “life in general”. What point are you trying to make?
Indeed the human being is a subset of life in general. However, human beings have free will, dominion over other life, and exceptional greed.

Now; a foolish individual might think, in this day, greed or selfishness has been key in advancement or expansion of life. This is faulty. It has only limited it. They may think that continuing with greed and selfishness or hoarding will continue to help advance humanity, this too is faulty and is actually why we see a form of stagnation now, even though my initial use of the word stagnant on this thread was a joke of sorts.

At this stage in evolution, or time, or life, or whatever you wanna call this thing we experience; if we don't exhibit altruism by any inconvenient means, then the next step in life, or advancement of life or existence will never come. Man will destroy itself or simply circle the bowl until the inevitable. Some might call the death of the majority of a species evolution at work. And they may also conclude that that particular path of evolution wasn't the most efficient or beneficial to life, as evolution doesn't care. To which one might add that evolution does not determine the direction of life, it is merely observation of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 09:49 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 09:18 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 08:45 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  First, Darwin didn’t “direct”, he explained observable nature.

As for what has been discovered and learned since the publication of Darwin’s Origin and Descent has only confirmed that the Theory of Evolution is true.

I don’t understand how a human being is not a subset of “life in general”. What point are you trying to make?
Indeed the human being is a subset of life in general. However, human beings have free will, dominion over other life, and exceptional greed.

I would say all animals have "free will” and try telling the insects, viruses and bacteria that we have dominion over them. I don’t think they got the memo.

(03-01-2016 09:18 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Now; a foolish individual might think, in this day, greed or selfishness has been key in advancement or expansion of life. This is faulty. It has only limited it. They may think that continuing with greed and selfishness or hoarding will continue to help advance humanity, this too is faulty and is actually why we see a form of stagnation now, even though my initial use of the word stagnant on this thread was a joke of sorts.

Are you trying to establish a relationship between the evolved characteristics of what we call greed and selfishness in humans (and many other species) and evolution? If you have a point it totally escapes me.

(03-01-2016 09:18 AM)‘popsthebuilder Wrote:  To which one might add that evolution does not determine the direction of life, it is merely observation of it.

This is a non sequitur,
“a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.”

ps View the short videos I posted, I think it will make clear what we are trying to explain.

“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
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
03-01-2016, 10:00 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 08:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  If morality were objective, then everyone would agree on it. They don't.
If morality were objective, then everyone's reactions would be the same. They aren't.

Does anyone disagree that torturing babies just for fun is wrong?


And no, if morality is objective, this wouldn’t mean everyone would agree, for the same reason that we don’t even agree on whats true, but this doesn’t mean that truth is not objective. In fact often when confronting the evil of others, those caught in the act of common moral transgressions, you’ll find symptoms similar to those who deny reality, often built on lies, cognitive dissonance, delusions, etc…. such as the holocaust being built on a lie, a scapegoat delusion, that blamed the Jews, or slavery being built on lie that the slave is not truly a human being.

No, everyone reactions wouldn’t be the same. I can believe something is wrong, and yet find myself doing this, such as a man who holds that adultery is wrong, cheating on his wife, while another man who believes it’s wrong, never would cheat on his wife.

Just because there is morality is objective, that doesn’t particularly mean that if this were true we would all be models of goodness. We live in world in which doing what’s wrong, is often more tempting than doing what’s right.

We don’t react the same toward truth either, some truth, might be uncomfortable for some, but not for others.

Quote:If morality were objective, then there would be an objectively determinable source. There isn't.

We can’t even agree to a standard on determining what’s true. Even here in regards to the question of objective morality, there’s no particular agreed upon standard by us, to determine whether this is true or not, each of us operates under our own seemingly subjective set of criteria. In fact probably any arguments you’d compose in opposition to objective morality, would parallel the argument of those who believe that truth itself is subjective.

Quote:You present yet another false dichotomy. Morality is based on human emotion.

Morality involves a set of beliefs, often derived by common intuitions. Those beliefs may involve some underlying sentiments like empathy, but are not reducible to them. And in fact these beliefs may be false, but intuitive beliefs. An example would be my strong sense of empathy, might lead me to believe that when a person is being harmed by someone, that they act being committed upon them is wrong, that it ought not to take place, that I have an obligation to stop it, to intercede, to speak out, to protest. My intuitions might lead me to believe that there is a rule, a a moral law, that I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me, that I ought not to do to someone, something that I wouldn’t want done on myself. In fact these beliefs, particularly in regards to personal transgressions, might create a great deal of guilt, a belief that I truly did something wrong, as oppose to just preferring one style of dress over the other.

Perhaps you mean to suggest that moral beliefs are based on emotions, but that’s wouldn’t be entirely accurate. In fact this says nothing about whether those beliefs are true or not.

Quote:Religion the source of morals? This has been shown to be untrue so many times that I laugh at your even bringing this up.

Well clearly you don’t believe that, nor do I. Yet you think that objective morality is false. But with religion out the picture how do we account for this nearly universal belief in objective morality? Could we say our biology led us to a set of false, but intuitive assumptions, that lead us to perceive our own moral intuitions as objective truths?

"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, 10:41 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 09:49 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  ps View the short videos I posted, I think it will make clear what we are trying to explain.

He doesn't watch videos. Facepalm

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, 11:02 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 09:18 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Indeed the human being is a subset of life in general. However, human beings have free will,

The nature, and even existence, of free will is a hotly debated topic. I see no reason to think we have anything substantively different than most other species. We may be at the high end of the scale but it hardly seems to be a yes/no question.

Quote:dominion over other life,

We have the ability to exploit and control other species to varying degrees; characterizing it as dominion seems incredibly arrogant to me.

Quote:and exceptional greed.

That is a gross generalization. Greed is not a simple characteristic and the degree it exists in different people and whether they harness it for positive or negative outcomes (as judged by others) varies.

It looks to me like you live in a very black & white world with no room for spectrums and nuance.

Quote:Now; a foolish individual might think, in this day, greed or selfishness has been key in advancement or expansion of life. This is faulty. It has only limited it. They may think that continuing with greed and selfishness or hoarding will continue to help advance humanity, this too is faulty and is actually why we see a form of stagnation now, even though my initial use of the word stagnant on this thread was a joke of sorts.

Who said they thought greed was key? It can be useful. It can be a motivating factor. It can also be problematical. Greed isn't good or bad except in how people act on it.

Quote:At this stage in evolution, or time, or life, or whatever you wanna call this thing we experience; if we don't exhibit altruism by any inconvenient means, then the next step in life, or advancement of life or existence will never come. Man will destroy itself or simply circle the bowl until the inevitable.

Meaningless woo by any inconvenient means[sic]. There is no single next step and advancement is purely subjective.

Quote:Some might call the death of the majority of a species evolution at work. And they may also conclude that that particular path of evolution wasn't the most efficient or beneficial to life, as evolution doesn't care. To which one might add that evolution does not determine the direction of life, it is merely observation of it.

Evolution doesn't care and it is not the observation. It is the process by which species change.

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
03-01-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 11:02 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 09:18 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Indeed the human being is a subset of life in general. However, human beings have free will,

The nature, and even existence, of free will is a hotly debated topic. I see no reason to think we have anything substantively different than most other species. We may be at the high end of the scale but it hardly seems to be a yes/no question.

Quote:dominion over other life,

We have the ability to exploit and control other species to varying degrees; characterizing it as dominion seems incredibly arrogant to me.

Quote:and exceptional greed.

That is a gross generalization. Greed is not a simple characteristic and the degree it exists in different people and whether they harness it for positive or negative outcomes (as judged by others) varies.

It looks to me like you live in a very black & white world with no room for spectrums and nuance.

Quote:Now; a foolish individual might think, in this day, greed or selfishness has been key in advancement or expansion of life. This is faulty. It has only limited it. They may think that continuing with greed and selfishness or hoarding will continue to help advance humanity, this too is faulty and is actually why we see a form of stagnation now, even though my initial use of the word stagnant on this thread was a joke of sorts.

Who said they thought greed was key? It can be useful. It can be a motivating factor. It can also be problematical. Greed isn't good or bad except in how people act on it.

Quote:At this stage in evolution, or time, or life, or whatever you wanna call this thing we experience; if we don't exhibit altruism by any inconvenient means, then the next step in life, or advancement of life or existence will never come. Man will destroy itself or simply circle the bowl until the inevitable.

Meaningless woo by any inconvenient means[sic]. There is no single next step and advancement is purely subjective.

Quote:Some might call the death of the majority of a species evolution at work. And they may also conclude that that particular path of evolution wasn't the most efficient or beneficial to life, as evolution doesn't care. To which one might add that evolution does not determine the direction of life, it is merely observation of it.

Evolution doesn't care and it is not the observation. It is the process by which species change.
If you had a point, you failed to make it.

All you managed was the conveyance of the opinion that greed isn't negative in itself but only when acted on.

The same can be said of murder or rape or priveledge or any other negative thing that stems from greed in one way or another.

I am glad we are within some upstanding on one another on your other points.

Peace
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Woe, with one another, not on.

Lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 11:33 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 10:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Does anyone disagree that torturing babies just for fun is wrong?

I disagree. I don't believe that anything is wrong (nor right for that matter).

How do you know that it's wrong? Can you prove it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: