Catholic v Protestant: Robert George v Cornel West

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Okay,

let me ask you this, Thunder;

Do you think it’s plausible that my position is correct?[/quote]

I’ll take this as the position you are referring to:

[i]I have explained repeatedly that natural selection is a cold bitch and does not adhere to morality in the sense that you present it. Please, if you wish to understand my position, assume for a minute that there is no morality, that there is only survival or not…

then add on behaviors that adhere to this goal (survival)…

then add on metacognition. Now, you have a situation in which a species (humans) attempts to explain and attache significance to these behaviors…

now you have the “concept” of morality as an adjective not a noun. [/i]

The answer is no - it isn’t plausible, because too much of “morality” cannot explained by the raw need to survive. In fact, certain aspects of “morality” actually encourage/require humans to do something contrary to their own self-interest, which cuts against the grain of your theory.

So, plausible? Not quite. Too many holes. You lack sufficient connection between information and conclusion to state your claim.

302

[quote]kamui wrote:

except none of these things are intangible. they may be “normal”, statistically prevalent, but they are not universal.
[/quote]

How are human values, attitudes, and emotions tangible? Doesn’t everyone have values, attitudes, and emotions? They may not be the same values, attitudes, and emotions, but everyone has them. Likewise, everyone can have morals without needing to invoke the supernatural.

303

Thunder, by claiming that morals are universal because they exist independently of a person’s belief, all you’re saying is that your supernatural being holds these morals while humans may or may not agree. How is that any different than one person holding a different set of morals from someone else?

What is it about a supernatural being holding these morals that magically makes them universal? Does it come down to might makes right? Is the supernatural being entitled to claim that its morals are universal because it has the power to punish people that don’t comply?

304

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

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. [/quote]

Since kamui provided the answer to your question to me about your definition of benefit, I’ll continue from here:

No matter what you do, you are trying to come to a conclusion about the source of morals by smuggling an “ought” into your equation. Why is this so hard for you to see? You can’t break out of the circle. “Ought” assumes something beyond your human (or animal) drives. It assumes something, well, like you said, “better,” or worse, and in this case, you need to adequately explain why YOUR idea somehow carries more authority than Stalin’s who had a whole different idea of the meaning of “selfish,” and “better.”

So go ahead, I want to hear it. How does your selfishness solve this problem? [/quote]

It doesn’t.

There is no ought. In order for there to be an ought, you have to adhere to your philosophy of the origin of morals.

I have explained repeatedly that natural selection is a cold bitch and does not adhere to morality in the sense that you present it. Please, if you wish to understand my position, assume for a minute that there is no morality, that there is only survival or not…

then add on behaviors that adhere to this goal (survival)…

then add on metacognition. Now, you have a situation in which a species (humans) attempts to explain and attache significance to these behaviors…

now you have the “concept” of morality as an adjective not a noun.
[/quote]

Sounds great. But if it’s just an adjective, you’re going to have to now explain how the adjective can have any meaning at all, when, by this definition, you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

So, when the Nazi’s were stuffing 7 year old Jewish girls into gas chambers, was that immoral?

Is raping a 6 year old boy in the ass immoral?

Is throwing a live asthmatic baby into a pit immoral?

If I can successfully argue that any of these actions serves the overall survival of the species, then are these acts suddenly, by the magic of Evolution, transformed from immoral to moral ones?

[/quote]

Adjectives only have the meaning that we attach to them through cognition.

I have repeatedly stated here that it is possible that what we have evolved into 1000, 2000, 10000 years from now may be repugnant to our current sensibilities. Like I said, natural selection is a cold bitch.

The three acts that you presented can be described as immoral, under the three following scenarios (there may be more):

  1. That the prevailing moral code deems them as such.
  2. That morals are an immutable external force.
  3. That committing them serves a greater good as reasoned through the ethical practice of casuistry.

I find options 1 & 2 to be more practical and plausible… but, you already knew that :slight_smile:

As to your last question, it depends again on whether or not morality is a construct of metacognition. Much like your question, this is just another way of stating what I just did in the last paragraph.

305

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

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?[/quote]

I would say of course it does, except for your poor choice of words. I don’t have to submit to any authority. I make a choice whether I want follow that authority or reject it. I can choose whichever fate I want. Or role the dice and hope that I’m right, if I choose not to believe any of it.

However, your question is a red herring. That wasn’t what we were talking about. I said my religion DOES NOT DISCOURAGE inquiry into its own tenets or the natural world. The Catholic Church is perfectly happy with my questioning and picking apart any of its teachings. [/quote]

I don’t know enough about the catholic church to disagree with you, but I’m suspicious. My former religion made the same claim, but what they really meant was that free inquiry was only honest and inspired when it produced the same doctrinal conclusions that are asserted by the church. If you disagree with the church on an issue, say homosexuality, that is because you aren’t honest or inspired enough.

306

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Okay,

let me ask you this, Thunder;

Do you think it’s plausible that my position is correct?[/quote]

I’ll take this as the position you are referring to:

[i]I have explained repeatedly that natural selection is a cold bitch and does not adhere to morality in the sense that you present it. Please, if you wish to understand my position, assume for a minute that there is no morality, that there is only survival or not…

then add on behaviors that adhere to this goal (survival)…

then add on metacognition. Now, you have a situation in which a species (humans) attempts to explain and attache significance to these behaviors…

now you have the “concept” of morality as an adjective not a noun. [/i]

The answer is no - it isn’t plausible, because too much of “morality” cannot explained by the raw need to survive. In fact, certain aspects of “morality” actually encourage/require humans to do something contrary to their own self-interest, which cuts against the grain of your theory.

So, plausible? Not quite. Too many holes. You lack sufficient connection between information and conclusion to state your claim.

[/quote]

Natural selection filters for genomes, not for individuals.

The only hole that you have attempted to prove in my theory is that morals sometimes encourage or require and individual to do something that is against their own self-interest.

As my theory relates to natural selection and not the instinct for survival (which I think you are eluding to here), I’m going to ask you to reconsider or elaborate on this supposed hole.

307

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

As my theory relates to natural selection and not the instinct for survival (which I think you are eluding to here), I’m going to ask you to reconsider or elaborate on this supposed hole.[/quote]

Murder in the context of neglect. It’s immoral to let people die, even if, from a natural selection perspective, allowing their expiration would reduce competition for resources in a given ecosystem (e.g., overpopulation corrections doen via natural selection, etc.).

Natural selection wouldn’t care if a bulging population of humans needed to be culled in order to reduce pressure on an ecosystem. Humans do, and would (and do) make moral accommodations in the opposite direction of natural selection and with the express moral motive to override the process of natural selection.

308

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

As my theory relates to natural selection and not the instinct for survival (which I think you are eluding to here), I’m going to ask you to reconsider or elaborate on this supposed hole.[/quote]

Murder in the context of neglect. It’s immoral to let people die, even if, from a natural selection perspective, allowing their expiration would reduce competition for resources in a given ecosystem (e.g., overpopulation corrections doen via natural selection, etc.). [/quote]

Does this make sense to anyone else? Seriously…

As far as I can tell, you are saying that natural selection takes precedence over humans in being granted the right to reduce populations. Never mind that in this context, humans are the mechanism of natural selection.

Again, in this instance, cognition is the mechanism of natural selection. Or, another way of looking at it, which happens to be an emerging theory in the world of evolutionary biology, is that there are epigenetic regulations for evolution that fall outside of the realm of natural selection. They do so by being the result of metacognition (unique to the human species) producing intentional and progressive adaptation, even intragenerationally.

So, again… where is the massive hole in my theory that makes it entirely implausible?

309

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

So, again… where is the massive hole in my theory that makes it entirely implausible?[/quote]

Good Lord. You said:

[i]I have explained repeatedly that natural selection is a cold bitch and does not adhere to morality in the sense that you present it. Please, if you wish to understand my position, assume for a minute that there is no morality, that there is only survival or not…

then add on behaviors that adhere to this goal (survival)…

then add on metacognition. Now, you have a situation in which a species (humans) attempts to explain and attache significance to these behaviors… [/i]

So, humans take behaviors that adhere to the goal of survival, then via “metacognition”, humans attempt to explain these behaviors as “morals”.

I explained to you that, no, there are “morals” that extend to behaviors that do not fit the pattern of “adhering to survival”. And then I gave you an example - though a group of humans would, in fact, benefit from “weaker members of their herd” being culled and thus there would be less competition for resources (ie., it would be a boon to survival), it is immoral to allow this to take place. Thus, “morals” exist that cannot be explained as merely to “attach significance to n behaviors done to survive.”

310

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

So, again… where is the massive hole in my theory that makes it entirely implausible?[/quote]

Good Lord. You said:

[i]I have explained repeatedly that natural selection is a cold bitch and does not adhere to morality in the sense that you present it. Please, if you wish to understand my position, assume for a minute that there is no morality, that there is only survival or not…

then add on behaviors that adhere to this goal (survival)…

then add on metacognition. Now, you have a situation in which a species (humans) attempts to explain and attache significance to these behaviors… [/i]

So, humans take behaviors that adhere to the goal of survival, then via “metacognition”, humans attempt to explain these behaviors as “morals”.

I explained to you that, no, there are “morals” that extend to behaviors that do not fit the pattern of “adhering to survival”. And then I gave you an example - though a group of humans would, in fact, benefit from “weaker members of their herd” being culled and thus there would be less competition for resources (ie., it would be a boon to survival), it is immoral to allow this to take place. Thus, “morals” exist that cannot be explained as merely to “attach significance to n behaviors done to survive.”[/quote]

Be honest, Thunder. Your initial post dealt with survival of the individual, not survival of the species. You are now changing the context to one of survival of the species. That’s fine. I can address this example as well.

Let’s say we possess one of two not necessarily “hard-wired” behaviors but biological imperatives… instinctive urges that relate to this type of dilemma (I am obviously truncating the possible impulses at play for the sake of framing the discussion.) Here they are:

  1. Remove weaker members from the herd.
  2. Preserve all members of the herd.

Which of the two, as our first impulse, would have a more persistent advantage for the species? In other words, when faced with this type of dilemma, if we are more likely to often pursue one of the two above possible biological imperatives, which would serve the species best in the long run?

I think that the answers is plainly to “preserve all members of the herd.” By preserving and propagating a wider variety of genomes, we have managed to move our evolution past the realm of natural selection and into epigenetics, phenotype persistence, etc… In fact, humans are wildly more successful than our relatives in the evolutionary tree that are more likely to cull the weak. So, in this instance, the prevailing moral paradigm of “sanctity of life,” does not conflict with the best interests of the species.

This isn’t to say that we may be pursuing a strategy that will fail in the log run. Evolution has a startlingly vast timeframe, so it’s hard to make predictions. It is also entirely possible that an external catastrophe could completely negate the issue. A good example would be the extinction of the dinosaurs… although, even there an argument can be made that the survival of many aspects of their genome via birds proves theirs to be successful.

311

[quote]forlife wrote:

Thunder, by claiming that morals are universal because they exist independently of a person’s belief, all you’re saying is that your supernatural being holds these morals while humans may or may not agree. How is that any different than one person holding a different set of morals from someone else?[/quote]

Because, as I have said over and over and over and over:

  1. Divine Moral Standard: when humans disagree with this standard, they are wrong

  2. Your Standard: when humans disagree, they are merely different

If there exists a hierarchy of morality, there is a such thing as “right” or “wrong”. Absent the hierarchy, you have a horizontal plane with differing opinions, none that are “right” or “wrong”.

They are universal because they are not subject to modification by humans. That is the basis of the universality. Accountability is step two and a separate question - step one is identifying that these morals exist universally and thus immune to human human overrule.

This is getting dull fast.

312

You didn’t answer my question. What makes someone automatically wrong because they disagree with the moral standard of a supernatural being? What is it about the supernatural being that justifies asserting its moral code as superior to a moral code created by a human? Why is its code magically universal just because the being is supernatural rather than human?

313

[quote]forlife wrote:
You didn’t answer my question. What makes someone automatically wrong because they disagree with the moral standard of a supernatural being? What is it about the supernatural being that justifies asserting its moral code as superior to a moral code created by a human? Why is its code magically universal just because the being is supernatural rather than human?[/quote]

Omniscient, omnipresent, and creator.

314

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

So, again… where is the massive hole in my theory that makes it entirely implausible?[/quote]

Good Lord. You said:

[i]I have explained repeatedly that natural selection is a cold bitch and does not adhere to morality in the sense that you present it. Please, if you wish to understand my position, assume for a minute that there is no morality, that there is only survival or not…

then add on behaviors that adhere to this goal (survival)…

then add on metacognition. Now, you have a situation in which a species (humans) attempts to explain and attache significance to these behaviors… [/i]

So, humans take behaviors that adhere to the goal of survival, then via “metacognition”, humans attempt to explain these behaviors as “morals”.

I explained to you that, no, there are “morals” that extend to behaviors that do not fit the pattern of “adhering to survival”. And then I gave you an example - though a group of humans would, in fact, benefit from “weaker members of their herd” being culled and thus there would be less competition for resources (ie., it would be a boon to survival), it is immoral to allow this to take place. Thus, “morals” exist that cannot be explained as merely to “attach significance to n behaviors done to survive.”[/quote]

Be honest, Thunder. Your initial post dealt with survival of the individual, not survival of the species. You are now changing the context to one of survival of the species. That’s fine. I can address this example as well.

Let’s say we possess one of two not necessarily “hard-wired” behaviors but biological imperatives… instinctive urges that relate to this type of dilemma (I am obviously truncating the possible impulses at play for the sake of framing the discussion.) Here they are:

  1. Remove weaker members from the herd.
  2. Preserve all members of the herd.

Which of the two, as our first impulse, would have a more persistent advantage for the species? In other words, when faced with this type of dilemma, if we are more likely to often pursue one of the two above possible biological imperatives, which would serve the species best in the long run?

I think that the answers is plainly to “preserve all members of the herd.” By preserving and propagating a wider variety of genomes, we have managed to move our evolution past the realm of natural selection and into epigenetics, phenotype persistence, etc… In fact, humans are wildly more successful than our relatives in the evolutionary tree that are more likely to cull the weak. So, in this instance, the prevailing moral paradigm of “sanctity of life,” does not conflict with the best interests of the species.

This isn’t to say that we may be pursuing a strategy that will fail in the log run. Evolution has a startlingly vast timeframe, so it’s hard to make predictions. It is also entirely possible that an external catastrophe could completely negate the issue. A good example would be the extinction of the dinosaurs… although, even there an argument can be made that the survival of many aspects of their genome via birds proves theirs to be successful.

[/quote]

I see this again, and again, and again. It’s like what T-bolt refers to as a reset switch. Where is this moral obligation to propagate and “better” the species coming from!?

“The Plan” you’ve fashioned up? Great, not everyone cares. Maybe their Plan consists of pleasure, below replacement level reproduction, and charging off the debt to the next units of the species to roll out.

315

[quote]forlife wrote:
Thunder, by claiming that morals are universal because they exist independently of a person’s belief, all you’re saying is that your supernatural being holds these morals while humans may or may not agree. How is that any different than one person holding a different set of morals from someone else?

What is it about a supernatural being holding these morals that magically makes them universal? Does it come down to might makes right? Is the supernatural being entitled to claim that its morals are universal because it has the power to punish people that don’t comply? [/quote]You may be a great guy, but it’s statements like this that are proof positive that you could never have known the God I know. That’s not in any way to say that you couldn’t still, but most assuredly not yet.

316

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
You didn’t answer my question. What makes someone automatically wrong because they disagree with the moral standard of a supernatural being? What is it about the supernatural being that justifies asserting its moral code as superior to a moral code created by a human? Why is its code magically universal just because the being is supernatural rather than human?[/quote]

Omniscient, omnipresent, and creator.[/quote]

Someone can be omniscient, omnipresent, and creator while still being a tyrant. What ultimate moral authority would such a person have to claim what is right and wrong? For example, I think condemning someone to an eternity of hellfire because they haven’t been baptized is outright evil. Yet millions of people believe in this being, and call it good. Where is the universal standard outside of what the supernatural being happens to think is right or wrong? It’s a personal opinion, just like the personal opinion of any human being.

317

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

So, again… where is the massive hole in my theory that makes it entirely implausible?[/quote]

Good Lord. You said:

[i]I have explained repeatedly that natural selection is a cold bitch and does not adhere to morality in the sense that you present it. Please, if you wish to understand my position, assume for a minute that there is no morality, that there is only survival or not…

then add on behaviors that adhere to this goal (survival)…

then add on metacognition. Now, you have a situation in which a species (humans) attempts to explain and attache significance to these behaviors… [/i]

So, humans take behaviors that adhere to the goal of survival, then via “metacognition”, humans attempt to explain these behaviors as “morals”.

I explained to you that, no, there are “morals” that extend to behaviors that do not fit the pattern of “adhering to survival”. And then I gave you an example - though a group of humans would, in fact, benefit from “weaker members of their herd” being culled and thus there would be less competition for resources (ie., it would be a boon to survival), it is immoral to allow this to take place. Thus, “morals” exist that cannot be explained as merely to “attach significance to n behaviors done to survive.”[/quote]

Be honest, Thunder. Your initial post dealt with survival of the individual, not survival of the species. You are now changing the context to one of survival of the species. That’s fine. I can address this example as well.

Let’s say we possess one of two not necessarily “hard-wired” behaviors but biological imperatives… instinctive urges that relate to this type of dilemma (I am obviously truncating the possible impulses at play for the sake of framing the discussion.) Here they are:

  1. Remove weaker members from the herd.
  2. Preserve all members of the herd.

Which of the two, as our first impulse, would have a more persistent advantage for the species? In other words, when faced with this type of dilemma, if we are more likely to often pursue one of the two above possible biological imperatives, which would serve the species best in the long run?

I think that the answers is plainly to “preserve all members of the herd.” By preserving and propagating a wider variety of genomes, we have managed to move our evolution past the realm of natural selection and into epigenetics, phenotype persistence, etc… In fact, humans are wildly more successful than our relatives in the evolutionary tree that are more likely to cull the weak. So, in this instance, the prevailing moral paradigm of “sanctity of life,” does not conflict with the best interests of the species.

This isn’t to say that we may be pursuing a strategy that will fail in the log run. Evolution has a startlingly vast timeframe, so it’s hard to make predictions. It is also entirely possible that an external catastrophe could completely negate the issue. A good example would be the extinction of the dinosaurs… although, even there an argument can be made that the survival of many aspects of their genome via birds proves theirs to be successful.

[/quote]

I see this again, and again, and again. It’s like what T-bolt refers to as a reset switch. Where is this moral obligation to propagate and “better” the species coming from!?

“The Plan” you’ve fashioned up? Great, not everyone cares. Maybe their Plan consists of pleasure, below replacement level reproduction, and charging off the debt to the next units of the species to roll out.
[/quote]

There is no moral obligation in the sense that you define morals. Is this not obvious in my position?

Why do you keep insisting that my position must somehow conform to yours in order to be plausible?

I have repeatedly stated that yours is plausible without demanding that it conform to mine.

318

[quote]forlife wrote:
Someone can be omniscient, omnipresent, and creator while still being a tyrant. What ultimate moral authority would such a person…[/quote]

Omniscient, omnipresent, creator…

319

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
There is no moral obligation in the sense that you define morals. Is this not obvious in my position?
[/quote]

Well, there are no moral obligations, period. After all, if there’s no moral obligation to propagate and “better” the species, morality can’t be derived from it as a starting point.

320

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
There is no moral obligation in the sense that you define morals. Is this not obvious in my position?
[/quote]

Well, there are no moral obligations, period. After all, if there’s no moral obligation to propagate and “better” the species, morality can’t be derived from it as a starting point. [/quote]

Wow! Really?

You’re a smart son-of-a-bitch!

It’s almost like you just defined my position… Wait… you did!

There is no moral obligation to propagate and better the species, so morality can’t be derived from it as a starting point! That’s pure, fucking genius!

Can I extrapolate from this, then that it’s plausible that morality as a concept could be constructed to explain the drive to propagate and better the species, and some of the strategies we’ve inherited to do so?