An aside here: the reason I possess a flagrant disdain for religion is that in so many ways it seeks to blunt deep inquisitiveness. Different religions and factions do it to different degrees, but they all ultimately propose an absolutist theory of the universe and demand it be taken on faith… because none of them can prove it otherwise. [/quote]
omg.
Right, you haven’t been doing that at all with your correct-so-long-as-it-fits-into-my-preconceived-evolution-framework conjecturing up to this point, have you?
This has been my point over and over and over.
You have your religion and your absolutes and your stubborn refusal to accept anything that doesn’t fit your worldview just like we do.
And my religion has never discouraged me from healthy inquiry into absolutely anything.[/quote]
And my religion has never discouraged me from healthy inquiry into absolutely anything.[/quote]
And a question:
Does you religion present you with the crucible that you must (through belief or some other form of fealty) submit to the higher authority of your god, or suffer a fate of eternal damnation?
An aside here: the reason I possess a flagrant disdain for religion is that in so many ways it seeks to blunt deep inquisitiveness. Different religions and factions do it to different degrees, but they all ultimately propose an absolutist theory of the universe and demand it be taken on faith… because none of them can prove it otherwise. [/quote]
omg.
Right, you haven’t been doing that at all with your correct-so-long-as-it-fits-into-my-preconceived-evolution-framework conjecturing up to this point, have you?
This has been my point over and over and over.
You have your religion and your absolutes and your stubborn refusal to accept anything that doesn’t fit your worldview just like we do.
And my religion has never discouraged me from healthy inquiry into absolutely anything.[/quote]
Here’s a challenge:
List my absolutes.
[/quote]
Evolution is.
[/quote]
Wrong.
If you provided me with incontrovertible, tangible evidence, now or any time, that evolution was not a reality, then I would discard it as a premise.
Sloth, don’t get hung up on the word society. Here, I’ll simplify my question:
Do you believe a strong case can be made that if people demonstrated love for every other person on the planet instead of hate, the overall well being of people on the planet would be better? If not, why not? It only makes sense that if everyone cared about one another and tried to help one another, people would be better off than if everyone hated and hurt one another.
Given that, why do you need a supernatural reason to love rather than hate?
Which kind of society? You’re assuming there is a morally correct form of human living, and wrong form of human living. As if the universe has dictated it, regardless of human opinion.
[/quote]
I’ve noticed that you do a lot of assuming about what other people are assuming.
Just an observation.
[/quote]
Please, feel free to correct me. Is the question not framed to assume a particular end is THE morally correct end? As if it was longer within the realm of personal feelings and opinion? [/quote]
Here’s the original question:
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
WTF is benefit!!! How many times now?..
You need to quit smuggling morals into your premises before you reach the conclusion that there are morals.
No assumptions necessary.
[/quote]
benefit = successful propagation of the species.
I’ve defined it for you more than once. I’m sorry that you’re not happy with my definition. Pick a better word to label my point, and I will use it.
you need no supernatural reason to love rather than hate in order to maximize the overall well being of people on the planet".
it’s a rather simple calculus.
but you need a supernatural reason to care about “the overall well being of people on the planet” in the first place.
you need, at the very least, to think that humanity’s well being is valuable in itself.
and this is an opinion not a fact, like all qualitative evaluations and all axiological affirmations.
it should be noted that “supernatural” doesn’t mean “something magical” here, it just means “something not found in nature”.
Why do you need a supernatural reason to value the well being of humanity, any more than you need a supernatural reason to value people paying taxes, or the sad beauty of a late Van Gogh, or the smile on the face of your child?
Thunder, what do you mean when you say a moral “actually exists”? I’m not following. If the universe were completely devoid of life, would this moral still exist? If so, how does it exist and In what form? [/quote]
Forlife, stop wasting my time. Once again your modus operandi is to hit the “reset” button every time you find yourself in a pickle. You’ve done it a thousand times before, and it is quite obvious.
I’;ve said a thousand times - a moral “actually exists” and is “universal” if it exists independent and separate of an individual’s preference. Yes, you follow this - don’t feign ignorance in an effort to hit the “rest” buttom yet again.
That is the only way a moral could be “universal”. To the extent that a moral exists outside of the individual - and I believe they do, as I believe in Natural Rights - a moral finds its moorings in something outside of individuals - a divinity.
Then they would - assuming a democracy - have the right to take that disagreement with me and petition for a change in the tax rate. Their opinion is not equal to mine at that point in time because their opinion is contrary to law (presumably enacted by majoritarianism). I can insist they are wrong because they are bound by the rule of law.
So what? Ask better questions.
There are also many logical arguments supporting the personal and societal value of people taking advantage of one another for personal gain, engaging in conquest, domination and exploitation. So what, Forlife?
You won’t find the “right” answer with pure reason - the answer you desperately want exists in addition to reason, outside of it.
we value people paying taxes because we make a rational calculus based on our own (individual or collective) interest. that’s fine, but it has nothing to do with morality.
we value the sad beauty of a late Van Gogh because we make an aesthitical evaluation. that’s fine, but it has nothing to do with morality.
we value the smile on the face of our child because we make an emotionnal evaluation. that’s fine, but it has nothing to do with morality.
btw, none of these evaluations are universal de jure (let alone de facto).
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
Which assumes that end, beneficial to society, is SUPPOSED to be the moral standard.
but you need a supernatural reason to care about “the overall well being of people on the planet” in the first place.
you need, at the very least, to think that humanity’s well being is valuable in itself.
and this is an opinion not a fact, like all qualitative evaluation and all axiological affirmation.
[/quote]
Why can you not care about the overall well being of people on the planet from a selfish perspective? IE; If more people are doing well, then I am likely to benefit from the overall increased quality of life, stability, etc…
This is not supernatural. It’s cognitive, which places it firmly in the realm of nature.
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
Which assumes that end, beneficial to society, is moral.[/quote]
Huh?
What is the mechanism that makes it moral in this instance?
[quote]Why can you not care about the overall well being of people on the planet from a selfish perspective? IE; If more people are doing well, then I am likely to benefit from the overall increased quality of life, stability, etc…
This is not supernatural. It’s cognitive, which places it firmly in the realm of nature. [/quote]
you can. but you can’t call that a “moral”.
at best, it’s an ethic.
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
Which assumes that end, beneficial to society, is moral.[/quote]
Huh?
What is the mechanism that makes it moral in this instance?[/quote]
Are we arguing your amorality or forlife’s personal universal morality?
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
Which assumes that end, beneficial to society, is moral.[/quote]
Huh?
What is the mechanism that makes it moral in this instance?[/quote]
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
Which assumes that end, beneficial to society, is moral.[/quote]
Huh?
What is the mechanism that makes it moral in this instance?[/quote]
Are we arguing your amorality or forlife’s personal universal morality?[/quote]
[quote]Why can you not care about the overall well being of people on the planet from a selfish perspective? IE; If more people are doing well, then I am likely to benefit from the overall increased quality of life, stability, etc…
This is not supernatural. It’s cognitive, which places it firmly in the realm of nature. [/quote]
you can. but you can’t call that a “moral”.
at best, it’s an ethic. [/quote]
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
Which assumes that end, beneficial to society, is moral.[/quote]
Huh?
What is the mechanism that makes it moral in this instance?[/quote]
Are we arguing your amorality or forlife’s personal universal morality?[/quote]
We’re arguing the context of the question
[/quote]
Well, the context of the question is that it is a moral good…
I could be mistaken here, but you’re the one responding. This type of weary indignation in a discussion forum is… well… wearying. [/quote]
Let me help you - you are mistaken. This isn’t mine and Forlife’s first lengthy exchange. My point to him was that I wasn’t interested in acceding to his fairly typical tactic of trying to start arguments over when he ran into problems answering questions.