Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 09:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  It's called empathy and has been explained too many times for you to be pulling the morality crap again.

Well, internet dickishness is almost a way of life, so common in forums, and youtube comments that it appears as if it's the norm. Much of this has to do with our anonymity, and the fact that we're dealing with people behind computer screens, rather than in the flesh.

I guess we could say this sort of dickishness is us not acting empathetically, not acting in a loving or compassionate sort of way to our fellow human beings, acting in ways that are contrary to this.

Then the guilt that supposedly follows along after behaving as such is what then? A guilt for not behaving empathetically, as we ought have?

If you have guilt over saying dickish things on the internet, then sure.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2014 11:39 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet, it seems to be true that acquired morals, such as masterbation is wrong, sex before marriage is wrong, watching pornography is wrong, get turned off when a person deconverts. You'd be hard pressed to find unbelievers who think these things are wrong.

Why do these wrongs get turned off, but the wrongness of dickishness does not?

That is a completely senseless comment.

1. You made a list of things that you claim, (without any evidence) get "turned off" when people DECONVERT.
2. Then you ask why "dickishness does not"

You realize you're saying dickishness is a part of belief ?

Are you on drugs ?
Are you drinking heavily ?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-12-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why do these wrongs get turned off, but the wrongness of dickishness does not?

Are you genuinely looking for an answer?

For the purposes of clinical psychology the standard is of disruption. Most actions are fairly neutral. Drinking alcohol is not a problem; alcoholism is a problem. Viewing pornography isn't a problem - until it is; if, say, it disrupts an existent or potential relationship one wishes to pursue or continue. There is, obviously, no firm external criteria for evaluation.

Our actions towards others prompt immediate neurological consequences in both us and them. Empathy and so forth to be sure, but sociopaths alike are possessed of motivations and thus on some level react to the acts of others.

Culturally acquired reactions are still real but they differ in that they're changeable, whereas the firmware in our heads includes some bases for interaction which are not.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
12-12-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  If you have guilt over saying dickish things on the internet, then sure.

Since you mentioned empathy.

If we extend this to any act of immorality, destructive behavior, etc... for us to feel guilt over this act, would require us to believe we ought to have acted empathically, in a compassionate and caring sort of way.

Would you say that's how it works for you. I'm sure at certain points in your life you found yourself acting in ways that were contrary to empathy, perhaps being cruel or mean-spirited, if you felt guilty afterwards, would you say it was because your failed to act empathetically that you felt guilty?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 11:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  If you have guilt over saying dickish things on the internet, then sure.

Since you mentioned empathy.

If we extend this to any act of immorality, destructive behavior, etc... for us to feel guilt over this act, would require us to believe we ought to have acted empathically, in a compassionate and caring sort of way.

Would you say that's how it works for you. I'm sure at certain points in your life you found yourself acting in ways that were contrary to empathy, perhaps being cruel or mean-spirited, if you felt guilty afterwards, would you say it was because your failed to act empathetically that you felt guilty?

Guilt is learned behavior.
Try harder.

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
12-12-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 11:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  If you have guilt over saying dickish things on the internet, then sure.

Since you mentioned empathy.

If we extend this to any act of immorality, destructive behavior, etc... for us to feel guilt over this act, would require us to believe we ought to have acted empathically, in a compassionate and caring sort of way.

Would you say that's how it works for you. I'm sure at certain points in your life you found yourself acting in ways that were contrary to empathy, perhaps being cruel or mean-spirited, if you felt guilty afterwards, would you say it was because your failed to act empathetically that you felt guilty?

I'm curious if you failed to understand this, or you intentionally do this where you are proclaiming a scenario but then asking a question about the scenario with the points reversed.

One could feel guilty and not believe the OUGHT to have acted differently or emphatically. You can feel guilty and still think there was no change in the scenario you ought to or should of taken morally. Still yes, This is probably because you feel empathy for the other person.

"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
12-12-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 11:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  If you have guilt over saying dickish things on the internet, then sure.

Since you mentioned empathy.

If we extend this to any act of immorality, destructive behavior, etc... for us to feel guilt over this act, would require us to believe we ought to have acted empathically, in a compassionate and caring sort of way.

Would you say that's how it works for you. I'm sure at certain points in your life you found yourself acting in ways that were contrary to empathy, perhaps being cruel or mean-spirited, if you felt guilty afterwards, would you say it was because your failed to act empathetically that you felt guilty?

That would certainly be part of it.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
12-12-2014, 11:52 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2014 12:00 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Are you genuinely looking for an answer?

Yes, I was, but i think you misconstrued what I was asking.

Quote:For the purposes of clinical psychology the standard is of disruption. Most actions are fairly neutral. Drinking alcohol is not a problem; alcoholism is a problem. Viewing pornography isn't a problem - until it is; if, say, it disrupts an existent or potential relationship one wishes to pursue or continue. There is, obviously, no firm external criteria for evaluation.

For most believers watching pornography is wrong, even if watched in moderation, that looking upon another woman in lust is wrong. One can be raised in a religious culture who views it as wrong, and while you were religious you may have believed the same thing. You may have found yourself watching porn at one time, and even feeling guilty about it as a result.

Yet that wrong becomes almost non-existenent when one becomes an unbeliever. Where at one time watching even a little pornography, might have caused you to feel guilt, and that what you were doing was wrong, once you let go of religious belief, then it's likely this guilt, this wrongness evaporates along with it.

What I'm arguing is that in this particular instance it should be somewhat obvious that the loss of wrongness, that the loss of guilt, is a result of changing beliefs, or an abandoning of certain beliefs.

Or in other words, in order for guilt to accompany an action, it requires a belief that i what I did was wrong. If I didn't believe I did anything wrong, then I likely wouldn't feel any guilt about it. Agree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:50 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Since you mentioned empathy.

If we extend this to any act of immorality, destructive behavior, etc... for us to feel guilt over this act, would require us to believe we ought to have acted empathically, in a compassionate and caring sort of way.

Would you say that's how it works for you. I'm sure at certain points in your life you found yourself acting in ways that were contrary to empathy, perhaps being cruel or mean-spirited, if you felt guilty afterwards, would you say it was because your failed to act empathetically that you felt guilty?

That would certainly be part of it.

Do you feel that you have an obligation to be a person who acts empathetically, with compassion for his fellow human beings, even if you don't always act in such a way?

If so, do you feel we all have an obligation to act empathetically, and with compassion for our fellow human beings?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 11:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you feel that you have an obligation to be a person who acts empathetically, with compassion for his fellow human beings, even if you don't always act in such a way?

If so, do you feel we all have an obligation to act empathetically, and with compassion for our fellow human beings?

Define obligation in this context.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: