Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2014, 12:17 AM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
Everything evolves in this universe. Not everything has a textbook dna darwinian evolution style of evolving into something different, however, nothing stays the same forever. Things are always moving, changing, evolving into something less or more complex or simply just shifting from one phase into another phase.

Just as we have evolved from Homo Erectus and everything else has evolved from where ever it came from, so has our morality and morality in and of itself.

Morality is basically just a word that we humans have given the condition of what is acceptable in our social network. Every cooperative species has morality. The more evolved the social lives of the species and the intelligence, the more potential for an evolved morality.

Morality evolving is self evident and we know this based on the history of our species.
Morality changes just like we do. Everything about us has changed and still is changing and will continue still.

In short.

The word Absolute does not exist in our universe. Absolute is neither Subjective or Objective. It Does Not Exist.Period.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
01-11-2014, 09:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 09:37 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
Even IF it can be demonstrated that certain modern human values are similar generally, (which we KNOW from the study of history did not always exist, but EVOLVED), such as what is today considered "abusive" in one culture (but not necessarily in another), it proves NOTHING. All it proves is that human values evolved. There is no "universal" value concerning children. Mulsims (theists) in some cultures think it's ok to marry very young women, and prevent them from getting even basic educations.

So much for brain-bittens stupid premise.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
(25-10-2014 07:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 06:57 PM)Mortimer Snerd Wrote:  Values are antecedents to behaviors. Morals that influence behaviors are dependent on how those behaviors affect (directly or indirectly) other living things.

Eating and pooping are valued behaviors. Metabolism becomes a value that's derived from survival as a value. Thus, eating and pooping are values because we value metabolism, because we value survival. But, if we had to choose to either eat, poop or breath, we would most likely choose to breath because we value survival more than we value eating and pooping. This is a prioritization of our values in their simplest form.

Now all you have to do is PROVE, scientifically that there are "antecedents" to behaviors." Does a rat think about whether it is going to poop ? Hahahaha.
Thanks for reducing your argument to a "reductio ad absurdam" all by yourself.

Neuro-science has already proven that decisions are made before we are aware of them. So if you do a literature search, your entire paradigm is already refuted, (even IF it made any sense, (which it does not).

I don't understand, are you trying to say my idea is ridiculous or that my ridiculous idea is true? If you say "Neuroscience has already proven that decisions are made before we are aware of them" and I suggest the same thing but call the initial causal element an "antecedent" (or the thing before the thing) then what is your point? I enjoy skepticism and critical thinking, but I'm not sure you are willing to understand before you dismiss.

I have a saying. "I won't say 'no' until I know what I'm saying 'no' to"

Perhaps you are helping people confuse cynicism with skepticism. I could be wrong. In fact I'm usually more wrong than right. I found the best way to have a good idea, is to have lots of them. If that is too much for you to politely handle, then I understand. Have a great day! :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: