To answer your question.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
There is no moral obligation to propagate and better the species, so morality can’t be derived from it as a starting point![/quote]
[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]
Your question answers itself - a “supernatural” being is higher (see “super” for the contextual hint). That being and its rule, code, etc. is superior in a hierarchy, not dissimilar, I would reckon, for comparison reasons, to the hierarchy of parent and child.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
To answer your question.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
There is no moral obligation to propagate and better the species, so morality can’t be derived from it as a starting point![/quote]
[/quote]
Sloth, you are either sadly or willfully dense.
explain - (trans.) - to account for an event or action by giving a reason as an excuse or justification
derive - (intrans.) - arise from or originate in
[quote]thunderbolt23 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]
Your question answers itself - a “supernatural” being is higher (see “super” for the contextual hint). That being and its rule, code, etc. is superior in a hierarchy, not dissimilar, I would reckon, for comparison reasons, to the hierarchy of parent and child.[/quote]
In the traditional sense, supernatural means outside the realm of natural experience, and doesn’t imply superiority. Ghosts are supernatural, but are not inherently superior to humans.
In this case, the hypothetical supernatural being would be more powerful…but then doesn’t it become a case of might makes right?
[quote]forlife wrote:
In the traditional sense, supernatural means outside the realm of natural experience, and doesn’t imply superiority. Ghosts are supernatural, but are not inherently superior to humans.[/quote]
Oh dear. This has become comical. I had no idea there was an academic understanding on the moral status of ghosts. How exactly do you know ghosts aren’t inherently superior to humans?
Not exactly - when you instruct your children that they can’t quit school at the age of 10 to join the circus, is the sole “rightness” of your decision as a parent disallowing them to do so solely a function of your ability to physically restrain them from doing so (assuming you can), or is there something inherently right about your decision that you can also enforce as a parent (a two-step process)?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
In the traditional sense, supernatural means outside the realm of natural experience, and doesn’t imply superiority. Ghosts are supernatural, but are not inherently superior to humans.[/quote]
Oh dear. This has become comical. I had no idea there was an academic understanding on the moral status of ghosts. How exactly do you know ghosts aren’t inherently superior to humans?
Not exactly - when you instruct your children that they can’t quit school at the age of 10 to join the circus, is the sole “rightness” of your decision as a parent disallowing them to do so solely a function of your ability to physically restrain them from doing so (assuming you can), or is there something inherently right about your decision that you can also enforce as a parent (a two-step process)?[/quote]
Thunder,
For a child at the age of 10, it would largely be a matter of your ability to threaten restraint or the withholding of comfort, resources, etc… A child at that age (with extremely rare exceptions) cannot reason at the level of comparative moral or ethical authority. Especially in the case of males, this cognitive ability doesn’t generally present until sometime between 14 and 16 years of age.
Again, and again, and again, and again… both you and Sloth insist on judging the logicality of the positions presented by forlife and myself by the standard that morality is an immutable externality. And, this (speaking for myself) is the core difference between our positions.
It goes something like this:
Thunder: Morality is given to us by god because of…
Swole’: Morality is a construct of cognition because…
Thunder: No. That’s illogical, because morality is given to us by god.
Am I missing something here?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
It goes something like this:
Thunder: Morality is given to us by god because of…
Swole’: Morality is a construct of cognition because…
Thunder: No. That’s illogical, because morality is given to us by god.
Am I missing something here?[/quote]
Yes, you are missing one thing - the one thing that was at the beginning of the debate.
Your statement “Morality is a construct of cognition” is not correct, because it ceases to be “morality” if it cannot be said to exist outside an individual’s preference. At that point, assuming your idea to be true, a “rule” created by “cognition” is something - a preference, an opinion, a persuasion - but it isn’t a “moral”.
And that is fine as far as it goes - nothing wrong with that. But then, I noted that because of this, there is an equality among all kinds of different opinions that negates any argument that one is superior to another - for example, the cognitition-generated “moral” of not killing Jews in concentration is equal to the cognition-generated “moral” of killing Jews in concentration camps, and one cognition-generated “moral” isn’t better than the other one. So, if this is true (and it is - there is no moral hierarchy in this idea), you have no basis to complain that one is “wrong” and one is “right”, under your scenario of purely cognition-created “morals”.
That is where your theory leads. If you are fine with that, there’s nothing left to discuss.
Prove that the parent is “inherently right” according to an objective universal standard. You can’t do so, because proving such a claim is impossible. At best, you can say the parent has more power than the child, the parent has more knowledge than the child, or the parent has more experience than the child…but none of that proves the parent is inherently right.
So what is it about the supernatural that you think gives supernatural beings ultimate moral authority? Would a ghost be more right than me because it is supernatural, and according to your definition, is conclusively superior?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
It goes something like this:
Thunder: Morality is given to us by god because of…
Swole’: Morality is a construct of cognition because…
Thunder: No. That’s illogical, because morality is given to us by god.
Am I missing something here?[/quote]
Yes, you are missing one thing - the one thing that was at the beginning of the debate.
Your statement “Morality is a construct of cognition” is not correct, because it ceases to be “morality” if it cannot be said to exist outside an individual’s preference. At that point, assuming your idea to be true, a “rule” created by “cognition” is something - a preference, an opinion, a persuasion - but it isn’t a “moral”.
And that is fine as far as it goes - nothing wrong with that. But then, I noted that because of this, there is an equality among all kinds of different opinions that negates any argument that one is superior to another - for example, the cognitition-generated “moral” of not killing Jews in concentration is equal to the cognition-generated “moral” of killing Jews in concentration camps, and one cognition-generated “moral” isn’t better than the other one. So, if this is true (and it is - there is no moral hierarchy in this idea), you have no basis to complain that one is “wrong” and one is “right”, under your scenario of purely cognition-created “morals”.
That is where your theory leads. If you are fine with that, there’s nothing left to discuss.[/quote]
Oddly enough, I think you’re pretty close to understanding my position.
There are still a few points I disagree with, though:
I think it is possible that the biological imperatives that have been explained by the term “morals” can be said to exist outside of an individual’s preference. I posit this, because they are a function of genome not of individual cognition. It is the genome that persists, not the individual.
A good example of this is the fact that we have two arms and not three. We are by definition subject to the restrictions of our genome.
We are talking about tools of our evolution here, not consensus based on opinions.
As for the instance of judging the “morality” of the acts of Nazis, the ultimate arbiter in my theory is natural selection. And, I suspect that societies that encourage cooperation and respect for human life will have an inherent advantage over those that don’t. Of course I have a basis to complain… I possess a biological imperative to propagate my genome, which includes the cognitive tool of respect for life.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Prove that the parent is “inherently right” according to an objective universal standard. You can’t do so, because proving such a claim is impossible. At best, you can say the parent has more power than the child, the parent has more knowledge than the child, or the parent has more experience than the child…but none of that proves the parent is inherently right.[/quote]
Well, you’ve played a card that is useful for me to know - you believe that (1) there exists no divinity outside of the natural world, and (2) there is no inherent “rightness”, only an ability of humans to use power to force people to do what you prefer.
Congratulations - you are a breed of philosophical fascist apparently.
For my part, yes, I believe there is an inherent “rightness” and “wrongness” over and over and over, and its existence is not subject to proof.
I don’t think supernatural beings generically have “ultimate moral authority”. A divinity does - a God - and it stems from that divinity’s nature as creator and lord - see the parent example I have used repeatedly.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I think it is possible that the biological imperatives that have been explained by the term “morals” can be said to exist outside of an individual’s preference. I posit this, because they are a function of genome not of individual cognition. It is the genome that persists, not the individual.
A good example of this is the fact that we have two arms and not three. We are by definition subject to the restrictions of our genome.
We are talking about tools of our evolution here, not consensus based on opinions.
As for the instance of judging the “morality” of the acts of Nazis, the ultimate arbiter in my theory is natural selection. And, I suspect that societies that encourage cooperation and respect for human life will have an inherent advantage over those that don’t. Of course I have a basis to complain… I possess a biological imperative to propagate my genome, which includes the cognitive tool of respect for life.[/quote]
I’ll use this example you provided earlier to further illustrate my point:
1. Remove weaker members from the herd.
2. Preserve all members of the herd.
In terms of raw survival, depending on the situation, each of these might be appropriate. One isn’t always right - situationally, they are both right.
And we come to the point. A “moral” says “no, only 2 can be right”. Cognitive-driven preferences say “no, both can be right, depending on the situation”.
“Biological imperatives” do not establish morals. Something else does.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Of course I have a basis to complain… I possess a biological imperative to propagate my genome, which includes the cognitive tool of respect for life.[/quote]
Oh, and in response to this - no, not really, you don’t. You have to respect someone else’s biological imperative to do something different.
Thunder, why would you choose to defend so adamantly something which even you admit “its existence is not subject to proof”? How does that make any sense? Your argument boils down to nothing more than, “There is a supernatural being who is always right because it is a god but you cant actually prove any of that but it is still true.”
Out of curiosity though, why do you think a god has any more moral authority than anyone else? Yes, it carries a bigger stick than we do and can condemn us to eternal suffering if we don’t comply, but how does that make this god inherently morally right?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I think it is possible that the biological imperatives that have been explained by the term “morals” can be said to exist outside of an individual’s preference. I posit this, because they are a function of genome not of individual cognition. It is the genome that persists, not the individual.
A good example of this is the fact that we have two arms and not three. We are by definition subject to the restrictions of our genome.
We are talking about tools of our evolution here, not consensus based on opinions.
As for the instance of judging the “morality” of the acts of Nazis, the ultimate arbiter in my theory is natural selection. And, I suspect that societies that encourage cooperation and respect for human life will have an inherent advantage over those that don’t. Of course I have a basis to complain… I possess a biological imperative to propagate my genome, which includes the cognitive tool of respect for life.[/quote]
I’ll use this example you provided earlier to further illustrate my point:
1. Remove weaker members from the herd.
2. Preserve all members of the herd.
In terms of raw survival, depending on the situation, each of these might be appropriate. One isn’t always right - situationally, they are both right.
And we come to the point. A “moral” says “no, only 2 can be right”. Cognitive-driven preferences say “no, both can be right, depending on the situation”.
“Biological imperatives” do not establish morals. Something else does.[/quote]
I take it back. Your last post was pure luck…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I think it is possible that the biological imperatives that have been explained by the term “morals” can be said to exist outside of an individual’s preference. I posit this, because they are a function of genome not of individual cognition. It is the genome that persists, not the individual.
A good example of this is the fact that we have two arms and not three. We are by definition subject to the restrictions of our genome.
We are talking about tools of our evolution here, not consensus based on opinions.
As for the instance of judging the “morality” of the acts of Nazis, the ultimate arbiter in my theory is natural selection. And, I suspect that societies that encourage cooperation and respect for human life will have an inherent advantage over those that don’t. Of course I have a basis to complain… I possess a biological imperative to propagate my genome, which includes the cognitive tool of respect for life.[/quote]
I’ll use this example you provided earlier to further illustrate my point:
1. Remove weaker members from the herd.
2. Preserve all members of the herd.
In terms of raw survival, depending on the situation, each of these might be appropriate. One isn’t always right - situationally, they are both right.
And we come to the point. A “moral” says “no, only 2 can be right”. Cognitive-driven preferences say “no, both can be right, depending on the situation”.
“Biological imperatives” do not establish morals. Something else does.[/quote]
That’s a pretty simplistic view of morality. What about context, and cases where morals conflict?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I think it is possible that the biological imperatives that have been explained by the term “morals” can be said to exist outside of an individual’s preference. I posit this, because they are a function of genome not of individual cognition. It is the genome that persists, not the individual.
A good example of this is the fact that we have two arms and not three. We are by definition subject to the restrictions of our genome.
We are talking about tools of our evolution here, not consensus based on opinions.
As for the instance of judging the “morality” of the acts of Nazis, the ultimate arbiter in my theory is natural selection. And, I suspect that societies that encourage cooperation and respect for human life will have an inherent advantage over those that don’t. Of course I have a basis to complain… I possess a biological imperative to propagate my genome, which includes the cognitive tool of respect for life.[/quote]
I’ll use this example you provided earlier to further illustrate my point:
1. Remove weaker members from the herd.
2. Preserve all members of the herd.
In terms of raw survival, depending on the situation, each of these might be appropriate. One isn’t always right - situationally, they are both right.
And we come to the point. A “moral” says “no, only 2 can be right”. Cognitive-driven preferences say “no, both can be right, depending on the situation”.
“Biological imperatives” do not establish morals. Something else does.[/quote]
That’s a pretty simplistic view of morality. What about context, and cases where morals conflict?[/quote]
I’m not aware of any morals that conflict, would you like to give an example of when they conflict?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Thunder, why would you choose to defend so adamantly something which even you admit “its existence is not subject to proof”? How does that make any sense? Your argument boils down to nothing more than, “There is a supernatural being who is always right because it is a god but you cant actually prove any of that but it is still true.”[/quote]
Because, via reason, I have learned that there exists a portion of existence that cannot be reached solely through reason - and where human reason ends, faith begins. It’s through precisely through reason that I learned of its limits.
This juvenile notion that you suggest - that Man only exist in accordance with that which he can prove - is not only silly and dangerous from a philosophical standpoint, but you don’t even abide by it, were you actually honest with yourself.
You say you can’t believe in something without proof, aye? You believe that you should take care of your children. Tell me, what did your children do to “prove” that made you believe they deserved your care?
And, by the way, as I noted to Swole above - if you are fine with the lack of morality under atheism, fine by me. There is nothing left to discuss. Just don’t pretend you can provide a coherent argument of a world of where any kind of “rightness” or “wrongness” exists, and, never, ever use the phrase “civil right” with a straight face.
Asked and answered - see above. You can only hit “reset” so many times and expect my willingness to play along.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I take it back. Your last post was pure luck…[/quote]
What exactly do you take back and why would I care? I’ve tried indulging you by explaining clearly where your “biological imperative = morals” argument falls apart and have done so wading through your terrible writing.
“Biological imperatives” - made strictly for survival - require different answers in different situations. “Morals”, by and large, do not. “Morals” often directly conflict with a “biological imperative” that requires something different - see my example above: even when a “biological imperative” demands a response to cull the herd when an ecosystem is strained, humans refuse to do so, citing moral override of that pure “law of the jungle” command.
“Morals” often command all kinds of choices and results that stand outside of basic “biological imperatives”. So, that theory isn’t satisfactory.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What exactly do you take back and why would I care? I’ve tried indulging you by explaining clearly where your “biological imperative = morals” argument falls apart and have done so wading through your terrible writing. [/quote]
Terrible writing - this marks the first time that anyone has characterized my writing as terrible. I guess there’s no accounting for taste.
[quote] “Biological imperatives” - made strictly for survival - require different answers in different situations. “Morals”, by and large, do not. “Morals” often directly conflict with a “biological imperative” that requires something different - see my example above: even when a “biological imperative” demands a response to cull the herd when an ecosystem is strained, humans refuse to do so, citing moral override of that pure “law of the jungle” command.
“Morals” often command all kinds of choices and results that stand outside of basic “biological imperatives”. So, that theory isn’t satisfactory.[/quote]
So, are you simply choosing to ignore the possibility that I presented in which respect for the sanctity of life is a more successful long-term strategy? I can understand why you would… I mean, it does present a difficult hurdle of logic to overcome.
Go ahead, though. I would like to see you try to disprove one of the more widely understood characteristics of the success of humans in relation to natural selection. This should be fun.
swoleupinya
altruism may be a “more successful long-term strategy”.
but a a successful long-term strategy for what exactly ?
our specie ?
the problem is that even if we try to express evolutionism in finalist terms (assigning “goals” to evolution, and strategy to evolutive actors) species have no such goals, and they are NOT evolutive actors.
genes are evolutive actors with specific goals (spreading)
individuals are evolutive actors with specific goals (surviving)
populations are evolutive actors with specific goals (reproducing)
but species are simple by-products of evolution.
and they are abstractions.
which means that an utilitarian ethic based on evolution, even if it justify altruism as a successful strategy will never consistently care for “our specie”, nor for all humans.
your starting point let you two consistent possibilities :
being altruist with some humans. at a population or gene pool scale.
or, if you want to be more altruist than that, you can be altruist with ecosystems and/or the entire biosphere. which ARE evolutive actors.
you can choose between biological racism or biocentrism.
but anthropocentric humanism is NOT a consistent option.