Utterly Disgusting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2015, 06:40 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(07-05-2015 06:50 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You're still misstating the opposing position. It's not that atheists don't believe in right and wrong; it's that moral relativists think that right or wrong depends on the actor and the circumstances.

Uhm, there's plenty of atheists who believe morality is an illusion, Daniel Dennet, Michael Ruse, and we have our own resident Stevel, here.

So the atheists he has in mind is one like them, who doesn't believe in right and wrong. In fact their position is the one most religious folks find coherent, and consistent from Darwinian and Reductionist perspective.

Quote:Who is this "author of morality" of which you speak, and where has he been the last ten thousand years or so? What evidence -- and you will have a debate about that going in another thread, I imagine -- what evidence do you have that morality has any author at all?

Well, if there was an author of morality, it would be God. But you're the one that brought up God, and how God is not judged the way other humans are.

Quote:And furthermore, how do you adjudge the behavior of your alleged "author of morality"?

I don't.

Quote:No, I'm talking about how he dealt every human death on the basis of the alleged failure of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

I always thought my failure was my own.

Quote:Clearly you haven't thought this through;

Clearly you expect me to be a mind reader, when your references are not all that clear, or cited.

Quote:You should ponder, and question, your faith on a deeper level than you apparently have. You don't even understand what Genesis has to say. Why should your opinion on other matters carry any weight?

You mean, what you think my faith is, and what you think Genesis has to say. But it should be fun to hear you teach me what Genesis had to say, to those early prechristian Hebrew communities in which it was written for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
08-05-2015, 06:45 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(07-05-2015 08:46 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The problems I see with people like stevil or others moral terms is they think it only exists in "good/bad right/wrong" which is foolish. Philosophically morality can be scoped at a far more sensible way. Use qualifiers that actually occur as a reality works, on a scale. More Harm or less harm. Things of that nature, or stick to the range of what moral values are being discussed.

Stevel's measuring stick is whether something is likely to put him in harms way or not. He's not particularly concerned if other people are harmed or not, unless he can see it viably making it's way to him. It's not a moral yard stick, it's amoral one, primarily political, in regards to laws and such.

So where is he wrong?

In fact he agreed with the gist of Ted Bundy's sentiments, except the interest in raping and murdering people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(08-05-2015 06:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 06:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  If you have a lot of empathy and you are confronted with a trigger situation, you have two alternate reactions - flight or fight. It has nothing to do with morals. She chose to fight - save the child and take up it's cause.

The perception that what was taking place with the child was wrong, as immoral, had nothing to do with her actions?

Was that perception just a byproduct of her evolution? Do you think the abolitionist would have been just as given to free slaves, if they didn't perceive the practice of slavery as immoral?

Do you think the perception of morality has nothing to do with motivation, and drive here?

That is exactly what I think. Morality is just a concept we apply to describe people with empathy. I will turn in that wallet with money I found because I feel empathy for the person who lost it. I need no morals, laws or religious constructs to do so.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
08-05-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
Morality is an artifact of chemical intelligence, as far as I'm concerned; as for the development of a consistent, comprehensible moral philosophy, I'm waiting for science to validate my conjecture. In hypotheticals, I assume the stance of tao; however, real-world moral decisions are assessed and expressed on the spot.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(08-05-2015 06:53 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 06:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The perception that what was taking place with the child was wrong, as immoral, had nothing to do with her actions?

Was that perception just a byproduct of her evolution? Do you think the abolitionist would have been just as given to free slaves, if they didn't perceive the practice of slavery as immoral?

Do you think the perception of morality has nothing to do with motivation, and drive here?

That is exactly what I think. Morality is just a concept we apply to describe people with empathy. I will turn in that wallet with money I found because I feel empathy for the person who lost it. I need no morals, laws or religious constructs to do so.

And how would you explain folks who might have been inclined to keep the wallet, or at least the money in the wallet? That they were born with some empathy deficit? Can a person feel empathy just the same as you do and decide to keep it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2015 10:37 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(08-05-2015 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, there's plenty of atheists who believe morality is an illusion, Daniel Dennet, Michael Ruse, and we have our own resident Stevel, here.

So the atheists he has in mind is one like them, who doesn't believe in right and wrong. In fact their position is the one most religious folks find coherent, and consistent from Darwinian and Reductionist perspective.

Fair enough. Insert the modifier "most" in front of "atheists", and answer my point.

(08-05-2015 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, if there was an author of morality, it would be God. But you're the one that brought up God, and how God is not judged the way other humans are.

[emphasis added -- Thump]

Here you are arguing that morality is not relative, and then you type this.

You undermine your own argument.

Also, the reason I brought up the differential judgement of God's actions is to demonstrate that even to Christians, the morality of an action is relative to the moral agent. When you have two different standards for two different agents, you have moral relativity. Hence the argument that all morality is absolute is silly.

(08-05-2015 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I always thought my failure was my own.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's stated clearly in Genesis that death, in humans, was the penalty handed out to all humans by the biblical god because of the Fall.

Do you think collective punishment is right or wrong? Support your answer with reasoning.

(08-05-2015 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Clearly you expect me to be a mind reader, when your references are not all that clear, or cited.

We're having a discussion about morality on a board devoted to atheism; naturally the Bible will be a reference. Have you not read the Bible? I don't expect you to be psychic, but I do expect you to be informed.

(08-05-2015 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You mean, what you think my faith is, and what you think Genesis has to say.

What Genesis has to say is clear to anyone with a basic reading competency. You're correct in that I'm assuming you're Christian; the fact that you're peddling their arguments about morality misled me. My apologies.

(08-05-2015 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But it should be fun to hear you teach me what Genesis had to say, to those early prechristian Hebrew communities in which it was written for.

Perhaps you should read it yourself and come to your own conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
08-05-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(08-05-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 06:53 AM)Dom Wrote:  That is exactly what I think. Morality is just a concept we apply to describe people with empathy. I will turn in that wallet with money I found because I feel empathy for the person who lost it. I need no morals, laws or religious constructs to do so.

And how would you explain folks who might have been inclined to keep the wallet, or at least the money in the wallet? That they were born with some empathy deficit? Can a person feel empathy just the same as you do and decide to keep it?

I did cover that already. Because evolution always looks for a better way, we are endowed with varying strengths of all human traits. There are people who have so much empathy that it hurts to go through life seeing suffering everywhere, and there are people with next to no empathy, and everything in between. The same is the case with all human traits. Just like we all have eyes and noses and mouths in our face, exactly how they look differs from person to person. Our instincts, hormonal balance, chemical balance and such also differs. We are all born with our own unique combination of characteristics.

If I could measure your level of empathy (of course, I can't), I could pretty much predict what you would do with the wallet. The same goes for many other behaviors - they are based on how you were equipped at birth. This is evolution's way of pushing the limits while maintaining a proven status quo. The ones without any empathy will run afoul of society and be removed from the gene pool. That wasn't always the case, life used to be a lot harder, and people with an abundance of empathy used to be removed because they were unable to fend for themselves. In the course of evolution selection has been more in favor of empathy (needed in this crowded world to secure the preservation of the species) and increasingly people devoid of empathy (cruel people, "evil" people) are removed through man made laws.

Thing is, once you realize this, you will have to abandon the concepts of "morals" and "evil". People are born to do what they do, they were equipped that way. They are not "good" or "bad", they are either disruptive to humankind or they support it. There is a small window for change there, we do learn in real time. Whether you can use this opportunity for change depends on the strength of your traits....

So there is a small chance that a person with lots of empathy will keep the wallet, they are influenced by real time learning. Or perhaps they have starving children at home and empathy for them outranks empathy for the loser of the wallet.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
08-05-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(08-05-2015 06:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 08:46 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The problems I see with people like stevil or others moral terms is they think it only exists in "good/bad right/wrong" which is foolish. Philosophically morality can be scoped at a far more sensible way. Use qualifiers that actually occur as a reality works, on a scale. More Harm or less harm. Things of that nature, or stick to the range of what moral values are being discussed.

Stevel's measuring stick is whether something is likely to put him in harms way or not. He's not particularly concerned if other people are harmed or not, unless he can see it viably making it's way to him. It's not a moral yard stick, it's amoral one, primarily political, in regards to laws and such.

So where is he wrong?

In fact he agreed with the gist of Ted Bundy's sentiments, except the interest in raping and murdering people.

I don't recall every detail of the stances he has had then or now. It's still, even if situations of moral quandaries don't affect an individual person, that's not what defines whether or not moral values exist.

"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
08-05-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(08-05-2015 09:59 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And how would you explain folks who might have been inclined to keep the wallet, or at least the money in the wallet? That they were born with some empathy deficit? Can a person feel empathy just the same as you do and decide to keep it?

I did cover that already. Because evolution always looks for a better way, we are endowed with varying strengths of all human traits. There are people who have so much empathy that it hurts to go through life seeing suffering everywhere, and there are people with next to no empathy, and everything in between. The same is the case with all human traits. Just like we all have eyes and noses and mouths in our face, exactly how they look differs from person to person. Our instincts, hormonal balance, chemical balance and such also differs. We are all born with our own unique combination of characteristics.

If I could measure your level of empathy (of course, I can't), I could pretty much predict what you would do with the wallet. The same goes for many other behaviors - they are based on how you were equipped at birth. This is evolution's way of pushing the limits while maintaining a proven status quo. The ones without any empathy will run afoul of society and be removed from the gene pool. That wasn't always the case, life used to be a lot harder, and people with an abundance of empathy used to be removed because they were unable to fend for themselves. In the course of evolution selection has been more in favor of empathy (needed in this crowded world to secure the preservation of the species) and increasingly people devoid of empathy (cruel people, "evil" people) are removed through man made laws.

Thing is, once you realize this, you will have to abandon the concepts of "morals" and "evil". People are born to do what they do, they were equipped that way. They are not "good" or "bad", they are either disruptive to humankind or they support it. There is a small window for change there, we do learn in real time. Whether you can use this opportunity for change depends on the strength of your traits....

So there is a small chance that a person with lots of empathy will keep the wallet, they are influenced by real time learning. Or perhaps they have starving children at home and empathy for them outranks empathy for the loser of the wallet.

Not to mention the fact that human behavior is not simply a matter of genetic coding, but also greatly affected by environment and upbringing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
08-05-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(08-05-2015 10:39 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 09:59 AM)Dom Wrote:  I did cover that already. Because evolution always looks for a better way, we are endowed with varying strengths of all human traits. There are people who have so much empathy that it hurts to go through life seeing suffering everywhere, and there are people with next to no empathy, and everything in between. The same is the case with all human traits. Just like we all have eyes and noses and mouths in our face, exactly how they look differs from person to person. Our instincts, hormonal balance, chemical balance and such also differs. We are all born with our own unique combination of characteristics.

If I could measure your level of empathy (of course, I can't), I could pretty much predict what you would do with the wallet. The same goes for many other behaviors - they are based on how you were equipped at birth. This is evolution's way of pushing the limits while maintaining a proven status quo. The ones without any empathy will run afoul of society and be removed from the gene pool. That wasn't always the case, life used to be a lot harder, and people with an abundance of empathy used to be removed because they were unable to fend for themselves. In the course of evolution selection has been more in favor of empathy (needed in this crowded world to secure the preservation of the species) and increasingly people devoid of empathy (cruel people, "evil" people) are removed through man made laws.

Thing is, once you realize this, you will have to abandon the concepts of "morals" and "evil". People are born to do what they do, they were equipped that way. They are not "good" or "bad", they are either disruptive to humankind or they support it. There is a small window for change there, we do learn in real time. Whether you can use this opportunity for change depends on the strength of your traits....

So there is a small chance that a person with lots of empathy will keep the wallet, they are influenced by real time learning. Or perhaps they have starving children at home and empathy for them outranks empathy for the loser of the wallet.

Not to mention the fact that human behavior is not simply a matter of genetic coding, but also greatly affected by environment and upbringing.

Yes, both nature and nurture are at work here.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: