Do you think that slavery is gone from this country because god spoke to someone?
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
Do you think that slavery is gone from this country because god spoke to someone?[/quote]
Seriously, dude, you really seem to have a deep and abiding fixation with God. Please point out where I asserted that “God is why slavery is gone.”
Otherwise, it’s probably more fruitful to anwer my question.
The whole point of the article is that moral evolution happens without a god driving. The slave just saved my life so I kinda like him. I then start to formulate the idea that slaves have value and start to look upon them as people and not property.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
I then start to formulate the idea that slaves have value and start to look upon them as people and not property. [/quote]
So you came to the conclusion that all humans are born free?
You used slavery to start your point of discussion with me to penetrate my thoughts. We are using that topic to discuss how morals arived in society. Handed down from a deity or evolved through a natural progression of society. Please ask your question again I thought I answered it but I may be mistaken.
In this country Yes. Not everywhere though. I hope that is true someday as our society evolves.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
You used slavery to start your point of discussion with me to penetrate my thoughts. We are using that topic to discuss how morals arived in society. Handed down from a deity or evolved through a natural progression of society. Please ask your question again I thought I answered it but I may be mistaken. [/quote]
You have just demonstrated that morals do not come from the social order. The social order you lived in held that slavery was moral. You came to the oppposite conclusion.
If you want to deny that we live in a moral universe not of our own making, you’re only way forward, as I see it - and please tell me if I’m wrong - is for you to say that morality somehow develops in some nexus of “chance” mutations.
Is that what you’re trying to say?
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
I then start to formulate the idea that slaves have value and start to look upon them as people and not property. [/quote]
So you came to the conclusion that all humans are born free?
And not only have you come^^ to a principle independant of your social order, you also believe that principle to be so correct that you would like the whole world to embody it.
Is that what you are saying below?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem & Rational Gaze: Only persons can apprehend morality. Only persons can be moral actors. [/quote]
…not quite: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
"We can’t prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
“But the weight of scientific opinion is that it’s certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates.” [/quote]
Obviously we cannot know for sure whether animals are sentient. At least not yet - maybe never.
If there is a spectrum and some animals are more sentient - and they display rudimentary and intermittent “moral behavior” - I fail to see how this helps your position, when it directly bolters mine. [/quote]
…how does it bolter your position?
Slavery was at some point considered moral. It evolved out of our society. The mechanism of moral development is unknown to me but i will not fill in that gap with speculation. i tried to create a story to illustrate one possible explanation.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem & Rational Gaze: Only persons can apprehend morality. Only persons can be moral actors. [/quote]
…not quite: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
"We can’t prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
“But the weight of scientific opinion is that it’s certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates.” [/quote]
Obviously we cannot know for sure whether animals are sentient. At least not yet - maybe never.
If there is a spectrum and some animals are more sentient - and they display rudimentary and intermittent “moral behavior” - I fail to see how this helps your position, when it directly bolters mine. [/quote]
…how does it bolter your position? [/quote]
To the extent that beings are sentient they tend - apparently, if we are to believe this article - to exhibit moral behavior. If so, the idea that morality is “socially constructed” is not tenable.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
Slavery was at some point considered moral. It evolved out of our society. The mechanism of moral development is unknown to me but i will not fill in that gap with speculation. i tried to create a story to illustrate one possible explanation. [/quote]
Okay, so first you asserted that morality is socially constucted.
Then, we - you and I together - proved that morality cannot socially determined. (You came to the conclusion that slavery is wrong despite the fact that the social order around you believed otherwise.)
Then you speculate (after saying that you won’t speculate) in your rambling fashion that perhaps morality emerges from some evolutionary process (via chance mutation**) - but then, admit that nd you don’t really know where it comes from.
Fair enough characterization?
**I’d be all-too glad to argue this point; however, I am unable even to ascertain what exactly you do believe. You are tap dancing around and unwilling or unable to commit to a position. Which tells me a lot actually.
[quote]DickBag wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
again, what rules? Circumcision? Wash hands before eating?[/quote]
Circumcision is a joke, and washing your hands is just common sense.
Carry on.[/quote]
Circumcision makes your weener look cool.
Cool is not joke, bro.
And another thing, I don’t have dick cheese.
lolz[/quote]
Am I the only person to wash his penis?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Now, how would YOU determine that slavery is wrong if everyone around you was agreed otherwise?[/quote]
Probably the same way a lot of people did. Not by using the Bible, but by realizing black people are people like they are with hope and dreams, the ability to love and feel pain… just like they do.
Any Biblical rationalization you see is typically afterthought. If it scares you that there is no giant father figure watching over you, you are weak. If you are scared he (and it is invariably a he) isn’t watching over other people, then you are arrogant.
Okay, so you agree that morality is not socially determined. And you don’t really know where it comes from. Fair enough characterization?
Not sure where you got this explanation from what I wrote. Morality is socially determined not created by asuperhero creator. Clear enough. Rules or morals develope when society needs them. Which is why we still write laws at all. I mean if god gave us laws we would not need a legislature any more.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
Okay, so you agree that morality is not socially determined. And you don’t really know where it comes from. Fair enough characterization?
Not sure where you got this explanation from what I wrote. Morality is socially determined not created by asuperhero creator. Clear enough. Rules or morals develope when society needs them. Which is why we still write laws at all. I mean if god gave us laws we would not need a legislature any more. [/quote]
We just proved it otherwise. Please read previous posts.
If you live in a society that believes A - and you come to believe the polar opposite to A - you cannot argue that morality is socially constructed.
Okay, so allow me to recap.
First you asserted that morality is socially constucted.
Then, we - you and I together - proved that morality cannot socially determined. (You came to the conclusion that slavery is wrong despite the fact that the social order around you believed otherwise.)
And not only did we come to a principle independent of the social order - you then volunteered that this principle (“all men are born free”) is so right that all people should embody it everywhere.
Then you speculate (after saying that you won’t speculate) in your rambling fashion that perhaps morality emerges from some evolutionary process (via chance mutation**) - but then, admit that you don’t really know where it comes from.
Fair enough characterization?
**I’d be all-too glad to argue this point; however, I am unable even to ascertain what exactly you do believe. You are tap dancing around and unwilling or unable to commit to a position. Which tells me a lot actually.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Now, how would YOU determine that slavery is wrong if everyone around you was agreed otherwise?[/quote]
by realizing black people are people like they are with hope and dreams, the ability to love and feel pain… just like they do.
[/quote]
In other words, by appealing to a universal principle?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
My answer is NO. [/quote]
Okay, so let’s perform a thought experiment: pretend you have grown up in a society that believes slavery to be morally correct.
Now, how would YOU determine that slavery is wrong if everyone around you was agreed otherwise?
And while answering, please keep in mind: you’ve already said that morality is determined by society.
[/quote]
Uhhh chances are that a slave or two might suggest that your treatment (treating them like slaves) might not be cool. A slave or two (or all of them) might try and escape- thus leading a few slave-owners to think “hmmmm. This system is not cool.”
The point is that the society in this little though experiment (although not really an experiment at all), would start to evolve from that point forward- because of the social relationships, not some divine order.
jnd
jnd
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem & Rational Gaze: Only persons can apprehend morality. Only persons can be moral actors. [/quote]
…not quite: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
"We can’t prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
“But the weight of scientific opinion is that it’s certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates.” [/quote]
Obviously we cannot know for sure whether animals are sentient. At least not yet - maybe never.
If there is a spectrum and some animals are more sentient - and they display rudimentary and intermittent “moral behavior” - I fail to see how this helps your position, when it directly bolters mine. [/quote]
…how does it bolter your position? [/quote]
To the extent that beings are sentient they tend - apparently, if we are to believe this article - to exhibit moral behavior. If so, the idea that morality is “socially constructed” is not tenable.
[/quote]
…“socially constructed morality” is the only position to have unless you can show to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your position is true…
Psychologist Matt J. Rossano argues that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.
The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival.