Empathy?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:19 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But as long as you think that individuals "create" these standards, you are still thinking as a relativist.

Moral realists believe that humans do not create moral standards at all, but rather, "recognize" that they exist.

You see moral values as something that exists because people invent them or conjure them up in their mind and that their reference is their own thoughts from which said thoughts originate. But if this is indeed the case, then the thoughts of the individual IS the only standard that exists. There is no Standard (capitalized) above two contradictory standards (lower cased) that one can point to and say look here! My standard conforms to The Standard more than your standard does.

Even if more people agree with standard (x) than those that do with (y), which is what you allude to with the whole majority agrees argument, all this means is that more people agree with (x) than (y). If you say that that means x is to be preferred over y then what you are really arguing for is the objectivity of x. I.e. that people "should" hold (x). But in so doing you are arguing "for" the very thing you set out to argue "against" i.e. the existence of objective moral values.

Life is full of standards. Life would be unlivable without them. Morality is one of the most significant aspects of life and yet people want to deny moral standards!!!!!

Deny them on forums and in philosophical papers that is.

No one LIVES as if morality is relative and that there is no such thing as evil. Those that do and act on these views are deemed sick.

I don't think you really want to find an answer as much as you want to argue in favor of god, but others might find serious discussion or thoughts on non-god based morality, so I will throw out a some of my thoughts on the subject as it pertains to the real world, without all the philosophical buzzwords and theoretical logic traps.

For most people, morality is like pornography... “I shall not today attempt further to define; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

I believe, even if we don't explicitly realize it, we are operating with learned frameworks of logic and reason based on one or more moral axioms. An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα (āxīoma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.

As starting points that can't be further justified, these axioms would have to be very simple. "Human life has value", perhaps, or "I have value" and "What gives me value gives others value", or "we have equal value", or maybe just the golden rule. This isn't a finished product, it is just a rough outline of a process, so I'm sure generations of humans would debate and obsess over finding the simplest axioms possible.

From those axiomatic nuggets, objective ("not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts") reasoning and logic can be used to evaluate competing moral propositions in a search for the ideal moral framework. The Standard you argue we need is filled by the simplest possible moral axioms that form the base of the system.

AHA, you say! But how do you prove the Universally and Objectively Correct Axioms! You don't. You can't. But what if someone else holds "human suffering" or "I am the supreme value" as their axiom? Isn't that a problem? Well, yeah, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a "moral" problem anymore. If you are swimming in the ocean and are attacked by a shark, is it a moral problem? You have morals, but other than fighting back or giving up, what choice do you have and what difference does morality make? Might doesn't make right, but it does make what is. As much as possible we strive to obtain and maintain the "moral environment", but we live in a cold and amoral universe with no omnipotent god to make it alright, so at the very, very, very, end, I suppose we may be nothing more than the product of sociobiological moral evolution... survival of the fittest morals. If you don't have mutually beneficial morals, you fight among yourselves more, and you tend to get killed off by those of us with more mutually cooperative morals when we clash.

Great post. I agree with everything in it.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Empathy?
Hey Jeremy - why not answer the question asked of you several times over? Are you scared to put forth a consise and clear version of your views? Do you like to keep advancing this little game that you can never win? Do you just enjoy bickering and using dishonesty as your weapon? Does this mental masturbation turn you on?

I gave you a chance, and thanks for showing what little integrity you have. GOOd luck to you. Several hungred posts in, and you only have another million more to go in your deceptive quest to appear like the philosopher, psychologist, and prized human with all the answers.

PUTZ!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 01:54 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:19 PM)djhall Wrote:  I don't think you really want to find an answer as much as you want to argue in favor of god, but others might find serious discussion or thoughts on non-god based morality, so I will throw out a some of my thoughts on the subject as it pertains to the real world, without all the philosophical buzzwords and theoretical logic traps.

For most people, morality is like pornography... “I shall not today attempt further to define; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

I believe, even if we don't explicitly realize it, we are operating with learned frameworks of logic and reason based on one or more moral axioms. An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα (āxīoma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.

As starting points that can't be further justified, these axioms would have to be very simple. "Human life has value", perhaps, or "I have value" and "What gives me value gives others value", or "we have equal value", or maybe just the golden rule. This isn't a finished product, it is just a rough outline of a process, so I'm sure generations of humans would debate and obsess over finding the simplest axioms possible.

From those axiomatic nuggets, objective ("not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts") reasoning and logic can be used to evaluate competing moral propositions in a search for the ideal moral framework. The Standard you argue we need is filled by the simplest possible moral axioms that form the base of the system.

AHA, you say! But how do you prove the Universally and Objectively Correct Axioms! You don't. You can't. But what if someone else holds "human suffering" or "I am the supreme value" as their axiom? Isn't that a problem? Well, yeah, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a "moral" problem anymore. If you are swimming in the ocean and are attacked by a shark, is it a moral problem? You have morals, but other than fighting back or giving up, what choice do you have and what difference does morality make? Might doesn't make right, but it does make what is. As much as possible we strive to obtain and maintain the "moral environment", but we live in a cold and amoral universe with no omnipotent god to make it alright, so at the very, very, very, end, I suppose we may be nothing more than the product of sociobiological moral evolution... survival of the fittest morals. If you don't have mutually beneficial morals, you fight among yourselves more, and you tend to get killed off by those of us with more mutually cooperative morals when we clash.

Great post. I agree with everything in it.

You cannot believe in moral axioms and deny moral axioms at the same time.

In agreeing with what djhall has said, you contradict your statement that there are no objective moral values and duties. For another way of saying objective moral values and duties exist is to say that moral axioms exist.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 03:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 01:54 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Great post. I agree with everything in it.

You cannot believe in moral axioms and deny moral axioms at the same time.

In agreeing with what djhall has said, you contradict your statement that there are no objective moral values and duties. For another way of saying objective moral values and duties exist is to say that moral axioms exist.

AAAAAaaaaaaaaaand here we have yet another False Choice Fallacy from the dipshit who can't tell the mythical "objective morality" from the subjective morality-by-fiat of a bunch of iron age goatfuckers and the gods they invented.


Tune in for more ignoring of posts and points that utterly destroy his moronic assertions, claims, and wannabe-arguments, plus a shit-ton of incoherent drivel, all brought to you by the William "Larry" Craig wannabe!!

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Empathy?
(07-05-2014 03:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have heard several atheists here say something that I have never heard said before.

They have said that empathy is something you are either born with or not born with. You either have it by virtue of your physiological makeup or you do not.

Now people here have repeatedly said I lack empathy.

If the above is true then it is not something I was born with.

If I was not born with empathy, then why do you all think that I should be blamed and or punished for this lack?

Do you think blind men should be punished and blamed for not being able to see?

Do you think men that can see should be praised and rewarded for being able to see?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186...ltext.html
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
08-05-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 02:34 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Hey Jeremy - why not answer the question asked of you several times over? Are you scared to put forth a consise and clear version of your views? Do you like to keep advancing this little game that you can never win? Do you just enjoy bickering and using dishonesty as your weapon? Does this mental masturbation turn you on?

I gave you a chance, and thanks for showing what little integrity you have. GOOd luck to you. Several hungred posts in, and you only have another million more to go in your deceptive quest to appear like the philosopher, psychologist, and prized human with all the answers.

PUTZ!

If you deny premise two of the moral argument then you believe in moral relativism. If you believe in moral relativism then in your world two people can say the following statements and both of them be true:

1. "Having NO integrity is epic and awesome." (non x)

2. "Having integrity is epic and awesome" (x)

In your world (if you are a moral relativist), then both of the above statements are true and since they are, your view violates the law of non-contradiction, one of the three fundamental principles of logic.

Fail
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: Empathy?
Due to continued violation of rule 3 this thread is permanently closed further action may result.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: