Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 05:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And how is this obligation not evolutionary charged? In essence to protect and benefit your species/progeny in the best possible ways in essence and hope your fellow species members do the same. What about this is so more profound it couldn't be evolution at work?

Because then you are suggesting that we have moral obligations and this is programmed into our biology, that these obligations are part of our chemical makeup. Perhaps you can see why this might be problematic? Or do you think this is in fact the case?

Quote:In the past, you also ignored multiple points on how Social contract theory is relevant to humans having a shared community of moral obligations and how that is a manner of how it can form outside of a deity.

Well, this is the first time i recall someone mentioning this social contract. When did I sign my name on this contract?

You might have to expand on what you mean here. Do we all have these moral obligations? Who does? Is there some that do and some that do not? If so, what allows one party to not be obligated, and the other to be obligated?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 07:39 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 07:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 05:46 PM)unfogged Wrote:  ALL fathers do? Not in my experience.

So only some fathers have obligations, while others don't?

Treesap stated he cares for his kids, but doesn't believe he has a obligation to do so.

Is he an example of a father without such an obligation?

Why is it that some fathers have this obligation, but others don't?

I take TreeSapNest at his word and if he says he does not have that as a moral obligation then he doesn't. A moral obligation only exists if the person accepts it.

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
19-11-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 07:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 05:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And how is this obligation not evolutionary charged? In essence to protect and benefit your species/progeny in the best possible ways in essence and hope your fellow species members do the same. What about this is so more profound it couldn't be evolution at work?

Because then you are suggesting that we have moral obligations and this is programmed into our biology, that these obligations are part of our chemical makeup. Perhaps you can see why this might be problematic? Or do you think this is in fact the case?

Quote:In the past, you also ignored multiple points on how Social contract theory is relevant to humans having a shared community of moral obligations and how that is a manner of how it can form outside of a deity.

Well, this is the first time i recall someone mentioning this social contract. When did I sign my name on this contract?

You might have to expand on what you mean here. Do we all have these moral obligations? Who does? Is there some that do and some that do not? If so, what allows one party to not be obligated, and the other to be obligated?

I don't see why this is problematic.. because you've never continued to describe how this would be problematic... You just keep asserting things and not explaining them. SO would you explain why it's problematic and not valid?

I posted the statement twice already in the thread. DO you literally not know what it is at all, from any point in history? It's an argument brought up by 18th century philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. It's not a matter of agreeing by signing it's a matter of agreeing by principal by engaging in society. By acting out in moral manners toward your neighbors because it's what benefits them and you, or your species in total, the best. If you engage in your societies normal social order, you are acting within the social contract via your obligation to help those who help you. That's mainly how the systems of our societies actually work. Those who don't accept it.. like Glenn Beck or fellow poster Luminion sometimes wish to form their own society with their own form of contracts. That's demonstrated in history as those hill-folk who abandon civilization because they don't want the obligations... for choosing that, they don't get the benefits of a functioning "civilization" either.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
19-11-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 05:59 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  The moment you decide to have sex, you implicitly accept that if a children is born, then you're supposed to care for that child, and I've given reasons for this in my previous posts, as in sense of responsibility, for example.

Can i have sex with a woman under different terms? Can we have an agreement that I am not obligated to care for a child if it's born?

Is your implicit agreement one when which is being made to the mother, to the child, or to the state that deems that I have some financial responsibility? Or to some other party all together?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 07:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't see why this is problematic.. because you've never continued to describe how this would be problematic... You just keep asserting things and not explaining them. SO would you explain why it's problematic and not valid?

I have no problem believing we have moral obligations, and that these obligations exist within ourselves, and all we have to do is reflect on ourselves, and we can perceive these obligations, because they are in essence wired into our very being. If you're fine with accepting that, then it's all good brah.

Quote: It's not a matter of agreeing by signing it's a matter of agreeing by principal by engaging in society.

So by engaging in a society I am obligated to live up to the expectations of that society?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 11:00 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 08:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 07:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't see why this is problematic.. because you've never continued to describe how this would be problematic... You just keep asserting things and not explaining them. SO would you explain why it's problematic and not valid?

I have no problem believing we have moral obligations, and that these obligations exist within ourselves, and all we have to do is reflect on ourselves, and we can perceive these obligations, because they are in essence wired into our very being. If you're fine with accepting that, then it's all good brah.

Quote: It's not a matter of agreeing by signing it's a matter of agreeing by principal by engaging in society.

So by engaging in a society I am obligated to live up to the expectations of that society?

Yep, that's in a way the social contract theory summed up. Maybe not perfectly, but in an understandable reasonable manner.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 04:22 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 07:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 05:59 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  The moment you decide to have sex, you implicitly accept that if a children is born, then you're supposed to care for that child, and I've given reasons for this in my previous posts, as in sense of responsibility, for example.

Can i have sex with a woman under different terms? Can we have an agreement that I am not obligated to care for a child if it's born?

Is your implicit agreement one when which is being made to the mother, to the child, or to the state that deems that I have some financial responsibility? Or to some other party all together?

Let's not explore all the ramifications because we will never get out of it.

What I meant is that when you typically decide to engage in the act of reproduction, you know what consequences it can have, and unless you're an immature person, you understand that you will have to accept them.

Animals care about their offspring because that's what is instilled in their own dna: make sure your offspring survives long enough to be self-sufficient. Evolution is enough to explain this.

We are animals so the same applies to us, but having intelligence we are also aware of it and we have more reasons to act that way (love, sense of responsibility, and so on).

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2014, 06:31 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2014 07:56 AM by Chas.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 08:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote: It's not a matter of agreeing by signing it's a matter of agreeing by principal by engaging in society.

So by engaging in a society I am obligated to live up to the expectations of that society?

You are required to meet your obligations. Drinking Beverage

That is the quid pro quo for participation.

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
20-11-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(19-11-2014 07:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 05:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And how is this obligation not evolutionary charged? In essence to protect and benefit your species/progeny in the best possible ways in essence and hope your fellow species members do the same. What about this is so more profound it couldn't be evolution at work?

Because then you are suggesting that we have moral obligations and this is programmed into our biology, that these obligations are part of our chemical makeup. Perhaps you can see why this might be problematic? Or do you think this is in fact the case?
I don't see this as problematic at all.
Just to give you a quick lesson on childbirth and care:

In case you haven't noticed, human babies, along with a number of other 'higher' mammal species, when born don't "hit the ground running." They can't defend themselves against predators, they can't hunt and forage for food, they can't even move themselves from Point A to Point B.
If a woman gave birth to a baby in the field and just left it there, the chances are extremely high it will die.
If a species as a whole, including humans, whose infants require this kind of care after birth did this action (leaving them immediately after birth), that species' population would likely get very close to, if not become, zero.

The species who had an "obligation" to care for their newborns and do so survive, and pass these genes along to the next generation who will do the same.

No, there is no "ultimate" that requires individual members or parents to care for their newborns. But if we as a whole species decided not to care for our newborns, we go extinct.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LostLocke's post
20-11-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
It seems like the best animal examples for extragenetic information and parental obligations are great apes, whales, dolphins, bears, etc. I remember seeing a doc on whales and its really incredible how much they rely on parenting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: