Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2016, 10:58 AM
Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(21-12-2016 10:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not because your BIAS tells you so. In (real ones, UNLIKE the crap one you went to) universities ALL OVER THE world, and in medical institutions ALL OVER the world, real thoughtful people come to consensus and LEARN about what is the moral thing to do for them, and in the specific situation. You default crap "moral nihilism" IS NOT the position we espouse. YOU MAKDE THAT SHIT UP. You have NO evidence for your LIES.

Most people are unlikely to put all that much thought into their moral philosophies. But among philosophers, over half subscribe to objective morality, and about 27% subscribe to an anti-objectivist/realist picture, that includes nihilist and subjectivist, though a break down of each is not available. So the subjectivist position is a minority view even among the class of professionals devoted to contemplating such things.

Quote:I don't know, but your idiotic question is IRRELEVANT and yet another disingenuous attempt at deflection. Nice try at not REALLY replying to THE POINT THAT WAS MADE.

Ah, so you know that most human beings subscribe to a moral system, but can't tell whether other animals like chimpanzees do, though we share a variety of the same behaviors, and biological history. What's the criteria for moral system? How do I tell whether a human being has one or not? Why can't I tell whether other animals do based on the same criteria?

Quote:What are you doing here?

Confirming my suspicions. Why do you care?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 11:52 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(21-12-2016 10:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Most people are unlikely to put all that much thought into their moral philosophies. But among philosophers, over half subscribe to objective morality, and about 27% subscribe to an anti-objectivist/realist picture, that includes nihilist and subjectivist, though a break down of each is not available. So the subjectivist position is a minority view even among the class of professionals devoted to contemplating such things.

All irrelevant as per your usual. We are not "most people", and your (unsupported BY DATA) ad populum argument about philosophers is also irrelevant.

Quote:Ah, so you know that most human beings subscribe to a moral system,

I never said that. Try to keep up dear and re-read what I said. Your "reduction ad absurdum" bullshit (and "fallacy of the excluded middle" --- called "black and white thinking, which I realize you fundies are all about) concerning Ethics demonstrates you know NOTHING of Philosophy or Ethics, or how it's studied and practiced.

Quote:... but can't tell whether other animals like chimpanzees do, though we share a variety of the same behaviors, and biological history. What's the criteria for moral system? How do I tell whether a human being has one or not? Why can't I tell whether other animals do based on the same criteria?

What is this ? Some sort of fucking Biology class ? It's all irrelevant and more obfuscation, (which is your middle name and MO). The POINT at hand is morality and ethics. Not whether animals whatever. You really are some sort of DOLT.

Quote:Confirming my suspicions. Why do you care?

Really ? About chimpanzees ? You want to know about morals in chimpanzees ?
You keep changing your answer to this. I think you're a fucking liar.

NOT ONE actual reply to any of the REAL points made concerning morals or ethics.
You never actually took a college level course in Philosophy or Ethics did you, Mr. Fake PhD ?

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
21-12-2016, 12:49 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-12-2016 10:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Why do you need to be accepting of it?
What does it matter if you accept it or not? How does this translate with regards to how you treat these people?

I mean if you accept it, you treat these people with kindness, with respect, with charity, basically, you treat them as human beings.

It seems you're trying to shift the argument here, trying to abandon your original contentions. I though of answering your questions but first, you have to confess that you can't support your original claims, about my lack of understanding of subjective morality. Or your claims that subjective morality, is different than other subjective preferences.

If you can't do this, than return to defending this, rather than trying to deflect and move the goal post.
I thought I'd already addressed that, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, perhaps you didn't listen?

I'll try and put it another way. I like Pepsi rather than coke. If I were to drink pepsi every day for a month, i'd probably get a bit bored of it and try coke for something different. I wouldn't feel any guilt over it, it wouldn't be putting my future at risk.
If however a moralist went every day without killing someone they wouldn't conclude that they are a bit bored of it and want to try killing someone just for some variation in their life. They likely would feel guilt and it would likely have detrimental repercussions on the rest of their life.
Their own morality is very different from picking out a flavour of sugary fizzy drink.
Your attempts to equate these things is rather blinkered and is probably due to some confirmation bias, you are reaching for a conclusion that isn't there.


(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:If you are not accepting of it, does that mean you treat them as less than human?

Are you willing to support laws to lock them up or to seperate them from their loved ones?

The only thing you need to accept is that my moral views of homosexuality have changed multiple times, sometimes I see it as immoral, sometime I don't. Since it was the idea of changes in ones morality that was in question.

How my moral views of homosexuality, effect my treatment of them, or the laws I support, is of no relevance to the topic.
I am trying to work out how you might deem something to be immoral or not. It is a mystery to me,because I thought regular church goers relied upon their church to tell them what is moral and what is immoral. Certainly the Catholic church tells their flock that the church is divinely guided and infallible on such matters, and that it is wrong for a person to try and decide for themselves.

If I understand how you come to your conclusion on whether something is immoral or not then I can see how you personally and flip flop between the belief that homosexuallity is moral or immoral.

But I am also very keen to understand how your moral conclusion manifests itself with regards to how you interact with a society which includes homosexuals.


Your behaviours are real rather than your beliefs which, unless you act on them, are mere childish fantasy.
With your moral beliefs you imagine yourself to be god, observing and judging.
With your actions you represent your beliefs in a real and tangible way. When you are looking to control others you are placing yourself into a self perceived superior position. You think you know better than others how those others should live their own lives. Perhaps you imagine that you are god and are dishing out perfect moral justice, or perhaps you imagine yourself to be some kind of holy crusader (self appointed) on a mission to rid the world of immorality (even though your all powerful god could do that if that was what he/she/it/they wanted).

Or perhaps its just about you. Your distaste for things you don't understand drives your emotions and causes you to behave nasty towards others. This is one of my big beefs with morality. People often think their morality makes then a "good" person, but actually there is a dark side to it and it makes them judge, and punish and control others. In your religious terms "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:What does it matter with regards to the cause? They are the way they are, they are people, living their own lives, making their own choice, they are no threat to you.
Who are you to judge them?

Why do you care how I treat or judge other Americans? It's clearly not your concern as a Kiwi. It should be of no more concern to you, than your treatment of Maoris is to me.
I am trying to learn from you, to understand what your basis of morality is, and then what it is that you do with your morality. Do you use it as justification to be mean to others?

My perception is that your church controls your moral beliefs. You believe what they tell you. I know you are telling me that you get to decide for yourself, but I don't understand how that works? Does it mean that you don't believe what your church tells you? Are you really a follower of your church or do you have your very own personal religion where you are the pope or the god even?

(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Are you talking about your view on the morality of homosexuality or your unqualified view on the cause of homosexuality?

My views of homosexuality qualified or unqualified effect my moral views, whether I see homosexuality as immoral or not.
I don't understand your need to assess whether it is moral or immoral. Is it something you are considering trying out for yourself, or does it drive how you wish to treat or control homosexuals?

If there truly is an all knowing, all powerful god who watches, judges and punishes then this is the god's thing, not your thing. It is between the god and those people that the god disapproves of. Where do you come into this?

It seems to me to be a waste of time and thought for you to worry about whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, about whether homosexuality is nature or nurture.

(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:It seems some people are growing a fear of Muslims even though the vast majority are peaceful. But that doesn't equate to the perspective of morality. I would imagine that Christians believe it is immoral to belong to a non Christian religion or even no religion at all. I would expect that view hasn't changed at all.

If they're exclusive monotheist they might view being Muslims as immoral, if they're not exclusive monotheist they might not see it as immoral. Someone could be raises as an exclusive monotheist, and change as he gets older, no longer seeing it as immoral.
When you talk of exclusive monotheist is that another name for Christians? Are there Christians how are polytheists? What would be an inclusive monotheist?


(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My morality is shaped by a variety of environmental and social factors, just like every other human being, and not exclusively or even predominantly religious, because I don't live in isolation of other pressures.
When does your own moral beliefs differ from what your church promotes?


(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Catholics have guilt for having impure thoughts, or from having sex with their spouse without trying to make a baby at the same time. Non Catholics feel no guilt over these things. Is the biology of a Catholic different from non Catholics?

Some dogs like to be pet some dogs don't, are they biologically different? Some people get aroused by skinny girls, some get aroused by more meaty ones, are they biological different? My wife feels guilty when she says no to her parents, I don't. Are we biologically different?
You actually haven't addressed the question.
Of course each individual is biologically different from the next.
But as a group why do all Catholics feel guilt for something that most non Catholics don't feel guilt for?
Is it perhaps because guilt is a learned emotion?

(21-12-2016 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I'm curious as to what you're suggesting here, to see if we're somewhat on the same page. If a person doesn't believe what they're doing is morally wrong they would they not feel guilty? Is the feeling of guilt dependent on beliefs that a moral transgression has transpired.

Is so. Does this mean that moral nihilist who don't believe anything is morally wrong don't feel guilt? If so how long after one becomes a moral nihilist do they stop feeling guilt? Instanteniously?
I think being moral nihilist does away with much guilt, just as being non Catholic would come with having much less guilt than a devout Catholic.

Does guilt go away instanteniously? I think becoming a moral nihilist is much like going from being theist to non theist, it is a process rather than an instantaneous revelation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
22-12-2016, 05:30 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2016 07:01 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'll try and put it another way. I like Pepsi rather than coke. If I were to drink pepsi every day for a month, i'd probably get a bit bored of it and try coke for something different. I wouldn't feel any guilt over it, it wouldn't be putting my future at risk.
If however a moralist went every day without killing someone they wouldn't conclude that they are a bit bored of it and want to try killing someone just for some variation in their life.

I agree that the conditions that produce serial killers are pretty rare, but lots of people try hunting (aka killing non-human animals) for a bit of variation in their life.

(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I am trying to work out how you might deem something to be immoral or not. It is a mystery to me,because I thought regular church goers relied upon their church to tell them what is moral and what is immoral. Certainly the Catholic church tells their flock that the church is divinely guided and infallible on such matters, and that it is wrong for a person to try and decide for themselves.

Stevil, you really don't understand this at all. I was raised as a Christian so I have first hand knowledge of this. You've got it totally reversed. The more common situation is that a person decides his or her own moral values and then uses confirmation bias to find the bits of scripture/doctrine that support those values. This is how we have 33k+ denominations of Christianity. This happens on both the macro (church) level and micro (individual) level.

To put it simply, you cherry pick the parts you like, and ignore the rest.

(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You actually haven't addressed the question.
Of course each individual is biologically different from the next.
But as a group why do all Catholics feel guilt for something that most non Catholics don't feel guilt for?
Is it perhaps because guilt is a learned emotion?

You've clearly never met a catholic school girl have you?

(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think being moral nihilist does away with much guilt, just as being non Catholic would come with having much less guilt than a devout Catholic.

Does guilt go away instanteniously? I think becoming a moral nihilist is much like going from being theist to non theist, it is a process rather than an instantaneous revelation.

I'm a nihilist and I recognize and embrace my human emotions, guilt being one of them. I'm not a sociopath, so when I'm mean to people, I feel bad, when I'm nice, I feel good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Matt Finney's post
22-12-2016, 12:23 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(22-12-2016 05:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'll try and put it another way. I like Pepsi rather than coke. If I were to drink pepsi every day for a month, i'd probably get a bit bored of it and try coke for something different. I wouldn't feel any guilt over it, it wouldn't be putting my future at risk.
If however a moralist went every day without killing someone they wouldn't conclude that they are a bit bored of it and want to try killing someone just for some variation in their life.

I agree that the conditions that produce serial killers are pretty rare, but lots of people try hunting (aka killing non-human animals) for a bit of variation in their life.
You seem to be getting Tomasia disease. You have missed the point completely. We were talking about the idea that a person's morality might change at a whim.
Your counter example of a person hunting is a situation where the person has no belief that it is immoral to kill non human animals. What point are you trying to make with this counter example?


(22-12-2016 05:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I am trying to work out how you might deem something to be immoral or not. It is a mystery to me,because I thought regular church goers relied upon their church to tell them what is moral and what is immoral. Certainly the Catholic church tells their flock that the church is divinely guided and infallible on such matters, and that it is wrong for a person to try and decide for themselves.

Stevil, you really don't understand this at all. I was raised as a Christian so I have first hand knowledge of this. You've got it totally reversed. The more common situation is that a person decides his or her own moral values and then uses confirmation bias to find the bits of scripture/doctrine that support those values. This is how we have 33k+ denominations of Christianity. This happens on both the macro (church) level and micro (individual) level.

To put it simply, you cherry pick the parts you like, and ignore the rest.
What is the church for?

I've never been to church So I'm not sure what they are for, but I have heard from christians the sayings "We believe..." as if they are unified in their beliefs.
I'm pretty sure their preachers get up on stage as spout out rubbish such as, "homosexuality is a sin", and definitely the catholic church control their flock's beliefs of what is right vs wrong.


(22-12-2016 05:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'm a nihilist and I recognize and embrace my human emotions, guilt being one of them. I'm not a sociopath, so when I'm mean to people, I feel bad, when I'm nice, I feel good.
I'm not a sociopath either, but I don't feel any guilt for having done anything wrong. I feel no guilt for having sex without wanting to make babies, I feel no guilt for eating meat, I feel no guilt for eating beef or pork, no guilt for blaspheme. Am I ever mean to people? Depends on how you define mean. I live in a world with a finite amount of resources, we compete against each other for those resources, sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, I feel no guilt for winning.
Do I get frustrated or angry sometimes and shout at my kids? On the odd occasion, Do i feel guilty? Not really, these things happen. It's just part of being human, we have no reason to feel guilt for being who we are, no reason to feel guilt for being human, for having emotions, for competing for resource, for being ourselves.

I guess it's not just about moral nihilism but also an aspect of accepting who you are and accepting human nature and accepting that we can't be "perfect" all the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(22-12-2016 12:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You seem to be getting Tomasia disease. You have missed the point completely. We were talking about the idea that a person's morality might change at a whim.
Your counter example of a person hunting is a situation where the person has no belief that it is immoral to kill non human animals. What point are you trying to make with this counter example?

The point is that a person can switch from thinking hunting is wrong, to having a love for hunting.

Joe Rogan, who is now an avid hunter, talks about how he used to have an anti-hunting stance in his youth. His viewpoint changed.

Here's another: http://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-b...-bowhunter

(22-12-2016 12:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is the church for?

I've never been to church So I'm not sure what they are for, but I have heard from christians the sayings "We believe..." as if they are unified in their beliefs.
I'm pretty sure their preachers get up on stage as spout out rubbish such as, "homosexuality is a sin", and definitely the catholic church control their flock's beliefs of what is right vs wrong.

Church is different things for different people, but I reckon for a lot of people it's for a sense of community, i.e. belonging to a group where they do have shared values. Even though there are some shared values, I don't think there are any 2 human beings with exactly the same values, whether inside or outside the church. Again, 33k+ denominations at the macro level gives lots of variation between churches, and you will for sure find variation at the individual level as well.

(22-12-2016 12:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ]I'm not a sociopath either, but I don't feel any guilt for having done anything wrong. I feel no guilt for having sex without wanting to make babies, I feel no guilt for eating meat, I feel no guilt for eating beef or pork, no guilt for blaspheme. Am I ever mean to people? Depends on how you define mean. I live in a world with a finite amount of resources, we compete against each other for those resources, sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, I feel no guilt for winning.
Do I get frustrated or angry sometimes and shout at my kids? On the odd occasion, Do i feel guilty? Not really, these things happen. It's just part of being human, we have no reason to feel guilt for being who we are, no reason to feel guilt for being human, for having emotions, for competing for resource, for being ourselves.

I guess it's not just about moral nihilism but also an aspect of accepting who you are and accepting human nature and accepting that we can't be "perfect" all the time.

I think you're scared of the world guilt for some reason. It's just a normal human emotion like happiness. For all of us non-sociopaths, it's quite normal feel good after doing something nice for someone, and it's also very normal to feel bad when we hurt someone, either mentally or physically. I think this is partly just from the human experience. You can try to suppress these emotions if you want, but I think you will be trying to suppress a part of what makes you human (at least a normal human, after all psychopaths are still human....).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2016, 09:44 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(22-12-2016 03:43 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-12-2016 12:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You seem to be getting Tomasia disease. You have missed the point completely. We were talking about the idea that a person's morality might change at a whim.
Your counter example of a person hunting is a situation where the person has no belief that it is immoral to kill non human animals. What point are you trying to make with this counter example?

The point is that a person can switch from thinking hunting is wrong, to having a love for hunting.
Nah, that's not the point your previous post was trying to make.

Here is our exchange here.
(22-12-2016 05:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'll try and put it another way. I like Pepsi rather than coke. If I were to drink pepsi every day for a month, i'd probably get a bit bored of it and try coke for something different. I wouldn't feel any guilt over it, it wouldn't be putting my future at risk.
If however a moralist went every day without killing someone they wouldn't conclude that they are a bit bored of it and want to try killing someone just for some variation in their life.

I agree that the conditions that produce serial killers are pretty rare, but lots of people try hunting (aka killing non-human animals) for a bit of variation in their life.

I was talking about the difference between picking flavours (trivially) vs the difference between holding something as being immoral and then doing the immoral thing just for some variety.

Your counter then brought up the idea of someone trying our hunting animals. At no point did you claim that they previously thought hunting animals to be immoral.

My point, is that you don't just trivially do immoral things, you have to have some non trivial change of perspective, especially for something that you strongly believe to be immoral e.g. killing people.

There is a distinct difference between this and picking flavours of a drink.

I do not hold the position that people's moral beliefs cannot change, so I'm not sure where you are going with this conversation.

Matt Finney Wrote:
(22-12-2016 12:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is the church for?

Church is different things for different people, but I reckon for a lot of people it's for a sense of community, i.e. belonging to a group where they do have shared values. Even though there are some shared values, I don't think there are any 2 human beings with exactly the same values, whether inside or outside the church. Again, 33k+ denominations at the macro level gives lots of variation between churches, and you will for sure find variation at the individual level as well.
This doesn't really address the the question.
Sure people belong to organisations for a sense of community.
But, why specifically, a church?
Churches sell/promote a view of right and wrong don't they?
Don't people look to church for guidance, don't they think the Lord is their shepherd. Aren't they wanting to be shown the path, the way?

Matt Finney Wrote:I think you're scared of the world guilt for some reason.
I have no fear of the word guilt.
But I do recognise that if you don't believe you have done something wrong, then you don't feel guilt.

A boxer, for example, can punch their opponent in the head, they can cause great distress and pain and physical damage on their opponent. This doesn't mean that they don't have empathy for their opponent, but probably they don't feel guilt, it is the nature of the business, both fighters are getting into the ring to win and both understand the risks. A boxer isn't necessary a sociopath or phsychopath, they are doing their thing and it is no disorder for them to lack guilt for winning their fight and hurting their opponent.

Matt Finney Wrote:It's just a normal human emotion like happiness.
Sure it is a normal human emotion, but it is built from the belief of having personally done something wrong.


Matt Finney Wrote:For all of us non-sociopaths, it's quite normal feel good after doing something nice for someone, and it's also very normal to feel bad when we hurt someone, either mentally or physically.
Please define good and bad (in an ammoral sense of course).
I do think it can be normal to feel empathy for someone, let's say you break up with a g-friend, she cries and stuff and you care for her and feel sad for her because you empathise, but that doesn't mean that you are feeling guilty.

Matt Finney Wrote:You can try to suppress these emotions if you want, but I think you will be trying to suppress a part of what makes you human (at least a normal human, after all psychopaths are still human....).
I don't suppress my empathy and I am not a psychopath, but thanks anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
28-12-2016, 12:14 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:I'll try and put it another way. I like Pepsi rather than coke. If I were to drink pepsi every day for a month, i'd probably get a bit bored of it and try coke for something different. I wouldn't feel any guilt over it, it wouldn't be putting my future at risk.
If however a moralist went every day without killing someone they wouldn't conclude that they are a bit bored of it and want to try killing someone just for some variation in their life. They likely would feel guilt and it would likely have detrimental repercussions on the rest of their life.
Their own morality is very different from picking out a flavour of sugary fizzy drink.
Your attempts to equate these things is rather blinkered and is probably due to some confirmation bias, you are reaching for a conclusion that isn't there.

Okay it’s becoming clearer as to what distinction you're trying to make, though trivial.
Your main appeal here is to the feeling of guilt and distress, more commonly found when people transgress their own moral values, but not typically found when switching preferences for soft drinks.

Now, it’s already been pointed out the feeling of guilt and emotional distress can be caused by a variety of other things, besides violating one’s personal moral values. My dog whining for pizza, or crying when left home alone might elicit a feeling of guilt and emotional distree though I did not violate any of my moral beliefs or values.

In fact you indicated that you are prone to feel guilt and emotional distress as well, even though you don’t hold any moral beliefs or values, as a moral nihilist. So clearly whatever is causing your guilt isn't a result of violating your personal moral code.

Secondly you're still describing feelings here, every subjective category involves its own set of feelings and sensations. The same same sensations and feeling that govern my food preferences, don’t govern my fashion taste, or musical preferences. They have their own unique set of positive and negative sensations, the stuff that makes me go “yum” and “yuck”.

Perhaps when you do something empathetic towards you wife, it makes you go “yum”, and when you do something non-empathetic, mean, it makes you go “yuck”. On the other hand if you treated me meanly, it might not make you feel as “yucky”, or “yucky” at all as it does when it comes to your wife.

The yucky feeling here are negative biological sensations, often labeled as guilty feelings.

You brought up "not killing" vs "killing" as an example, pointing that how so different such a transtion would be from switching soft drinks. When a better example would have been switching from drinking coke, to drinking shit, or pulverized gym socks. While whether a person likes eating spaghetti more than shit is subjective, it not a subjective change we’re likely to do easily, as a “whim” as you put it, like switching between Coke and Pepsi.

Thirdly our biology has placed a variety of conditions in place, that makes us not particularly prone to kill other members of our species so wantonly. By making it seem not so particularly pleasurable. Coke and Pepsi at least have something sweet involved, while murdering a stranger for most of us doesn’t. Any species where wanton murdering was a pleasurable, would not have been able to survive very long. So it’s not particularly difficult to see why the idea of killing often produces a variety of negative sensations, often labeled guilt.

And not to mention the variety of safe guards society places to prohibit you from murdering others, such a jail, imprisonment, social ostracizing, etc… I might want to kill you for cutting me off on the hig way, but don’t want to jeopardize my career and family. Where as my family and career are not on the line when switching soft drinks.

Now not murdering other’s might be a common moral value, but it’s just one. There’s a variety of commonly held ones, like don’t steal, don’t sleep with your other people’s wives. Now many of the men here might hold that it would be morally wrong to have an affair with Stevil’s wife. Yet if you a had a hot wife, and she came on to them, many of them would likely violate their own moral prohibition here when tempted, quite easily. Perhaps initially the feel a tinge of guilt, because they feel they violated their own personal moral standard, or maybe at this point they can pause and realize that they didn’t violate a God ordained moral value, just some arbitrary rule they imposed on themselves, and that morality doesn’t exist, and they did nothing wrong, but get their rocks off. They’re just like the ex-catholic masterbating for the first time after de-converting.

People have a variety of personal moral prohibitions, some as difficult to transverse as going from liking the taste or chocolate to cow manure. Others not so difficult to transverse when tempted. In fact people do so all the time, and we can’t say they’re always plagued by guilt about it. There’s plenty of christians masterbating, cheating on their wives, hardly riddled with guilt about it.

[quote]But as a group why do all Catholics feel guilt for something that most non Catholics don't feel guilt for?

You state this as if it’s true. There’s over 1 billion catholics in the world, and I’m sure plenty of them masterbate, have premarital sex, without much of any guilt over any of it. Some might be plagued with a considerable amount of guilt when they do, others might feel a quick sensation of guilt, but get over it rather quickly. It’s an emotion, a feeling, and operates with the same degree of diversity, of different levels of intensity for different people, as every other emotion.

But why do you think they feel guilty, but non-catholics don’t? Because non-catholics don’t see anything morally wrong it?

Yet you don’t see anything morally wrong with being mean to your wife, but indicated you might still feel guilty about it. Perhaps one day you get aroused by your wife’s sister, or daughter’s friend, and masterbate fantasizing about it, even though you don’t believe it’s morely wrong to masterbate, it’s still possible you might feel guilty about doing so. Just like you might feel guilty about being mean to your wife, even though you don’t see anything morally wrong about being mean to your wife.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 12:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet you don’t see anything morally wrong with being mean to your wife, but indicated you might still feel guilty about it.
Reference please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 12:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 12:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet you don’t see anything morally wrong with being mean to your wife, but indicated you might still feel guilty about it.
Reference please.

I apologize, after rereading the thread, I realized I read one of Matt's post as yours. So it's perhaps better that I ask some questions.

(28-12-2016 12:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think being moral nihilist does away with much guilt, just as being non Catholic would come with having much less guilt than a devout Catholic.

Does guilt go away instanteniously? I think becoming a moral nihilist is much like going from being theist to non theist, it is a process rather than an instantaneous revelation.

Matt is a moral nihilist, but indicated that he does feel guilt on occasions. You're a moral nihilist as well, do you feel guilt on occasions as well? Ever felt guilt for being mean to someone? Your wife, or kids, etc...?

I also just realized that my previous post wasn't formatted correctly, so the fuller response to your other comments were absent. I'll copay and past the portion here (please be mindful of where I might have conflated you and Matt):

(21-12-2016 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'll try and put it another way. I like Pepsi rather than coke. If I were to drink pepsi every day for a month, i'd probably get a bit bored of it and try coke for something different. I wouldn't feel any guilt over it, it wouldn't be putting my future at risk.
If however a moralist went every day without killing someone they wouldn't conclude that they are a bit bored of it and want to try killing someone just for some variation in their life. They likely would feel guilt and it would likely have detrimental repercussions on the rest of their life.

Their own morality is very different from picking out a flavour of sugary fizzy drink.
Your attempts to equate these things is rather blinkered and is probably due to some confirmation bias, you are reaching for a conclusion that isn't there.

Okay it’s becoming clearer as to what distinction you're trying to make, though trivial.
Your main appeal here is to the feeling of guilt and distress, more commonly found when people transgress their own moral values, but not typically found when switching preferences for soft drinks.

Now, it’s already been pointed out the feeling of guilt and emotional distress can be caused by a variety of other things, besides violating one’s personal moral values. My dog whining for pizza, or crying when left home alone might elicit a feeling of guilt and emotional distree though I did not violate any of my moral beliefs or values.

In fact you indicated that you are prone to feel guilt and emotional distress as well, even though you don’t hold any moral beliefs or values, as a moral nihilist. So clearly whatever is causing your guilt isn't a result of violating your personal moral code.

Secondly you're still describing feelings here, every subjective category involves its own set of feelings and sensations. The same same sensations and feeling that govern my food preferences, don’t govern my fashion taste, or musical preferences. They have their own unique set of positive and negative sensations, the stuff that makes me go “yum” and “yuck”.

Perhaps when you do something empathetic towards you wife, it makes you go “yum”, and when you do something non-empathetic, mean, it makes you go “yuck”. On the other hand if you treated me meanly, it might not make you feel as “yucky”, or “yucky” at all as it does when it comes to your wife.

The yucky feeling here are negative biological sensations, often labeled as guilty feelings.

You brought up "not killing" vs "killing" as an example, pointing that how so different such a transtion would be from switching soft drinks. When a better example would have been switching from drinking coke, to drinking shit, or pulverized gym socks. While whether a person likes eating spaghetti more than shit is subjective, it not a subjective change we’re likely to do easily, as a “whim” as you put it, like switching between Coke and Pepsi.

Thirdly our biology has placed a variety of conditions in place, that makes us not particularly prone to kill other members of our species so wantonly. By making it seem not so particularly pleasurable. Coke and Pepsi at least have something sweet involved, while murdering a stranger for most of us doesn’t. Any species where wanton murdering was a pleasurable, would not have been able to survive very long. So it’s not particularly difficult to see why the idea of killing often produces a variety of negative sensations, often labeled guilt.

And not to mention the variety of safe guards society places to prohibit you from murdering others, such a jail, imprisonment, social ostracizing, etc… I might want to kill you for cutting me off on the hig way, but don’t want to jeopardize my career and family. Where as my family and career are not on the line when switching soft drinks.

Now not murdering other’s might be a common moral value, but it’s just one. There’s a variety of commonly held ones, like don’t steal, don’t sleep with your other people’s wives. Now many of the men here might hold that it would be morally wrong to have an affair with Stevil’s wife. Yet if you a had a hot wife, and she came on to them, many of them would likely violate their own moral prohibition here when tempted, quite easily. Perhaps initially the feel a tinge of guilt, because they feel they violated their own personal moral standard, or maybe at this point they can pause and realize that they didn’t violate a God ordained moral value, just some arbitrary rule they imposed on themselves, and that morality doesn’t exist, and they did nothing wrong, but get their rocks off. They’re just like the ex-catholic masterbating for the first time after de-converting.

People have a variety of personal moral prohibitions, some as difficult to transverse as going from liking the taste or chocolate to cow manure. Others not so difficult to transverse when tempted. In fact people do so all the time, and we can’t say they’re always plagued by guilt about it. There’s plenty of christians masterbating, cheating on their wives, hardly riddled with guilt about it.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: