[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do. Thoroughly.[/quote]
No you don’t.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your reality exists because you exist. When you stop existing, your reality stops to exist.
All of [your] reality is processed, perceived and scaled by your brain, and you are nothing without your brain.
Your conclusion leads to an even bigger anomaly, god/uncaused cause. This is why your explanation does not explain anything with certainty.
Your confusion is similar to people who say, “oh well, evolution is not real because it’s just a theory.”
Laws of nature aren’t concepts, but our explanation of them are concepts. Math is a man made application of natural order. An application that works rather well, I grant you that.
If morality is a force of nature it must be objectively true for all of us. You can’t apply caveats to morality just like you can’t choose to not be affected by gravity on this planet.
Yet people apply caveats to morality every day, “this is wrong, but in that case it isn’t.”
You’ll disagree, naturally.[/quote]
I hope you don’t mind if I interject, but I have seen this argument given several times and I don’t think it really holds - people display varying morals because they dont just live by their morals, but are affected by their wants and desires, emotions and also are lead by those around them. I think morality probably IS obkective with respect to humans - we all have the same brain structure and perceive/conceive in the same way. very young children display a sense of fairness - I would say that is an argument for something underpinning our morality (evolution???). I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.
Murder has been and will always be wrong. Granted, there’s room for debate about what is and isn’t murder but you’re never going to find a successful culture that tolerates, much less encourages murder.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Murder has been and will always be wrong. Granted, there’s room for debate about what is and isn’t murder but you’re never going to find a successful culture that tolerates, much less encourages murder.
[/quote]
Capital Punishment?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Murder has been and will always be wrong. Granted, there’s room for debate about what is and isn’t murder but you’re never going to find a successful culture that tolerates, much less encourages murder.
[/quote]
Capital Punishment?[/quote]
If you are going to nitpick him…lets rephrase it as promiscuous killing.
In my opinion anything other than a biologically based morality lends itself to a bit of immoral action, but thats purely my opinion of course.
What constitutes promiscuous killing as almost entirely culturally or religiously based though. Generally atrocities performed on the other are deemed to be moral actions historically. Morality certainly seems to be subjective for many.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Murder has been and will always be wrong. Granted, there’s room for debate about what is and isn’t murder but you’re never going to find a successful culture that tolerates, much less encourages murder.
[/quote]
Capital Punishment?[/quote]
If you are going to nitpick him…lets rephrase it as promiscuous killing.
In my opinion anything other than a biologically based morality lends itself to a bit of immoral action, but thats purely my opinion of course.
What constitutes promiscuous killing as almost entirely culturally or religiously based though. Generally atrocities performed on the other are deemed to be moral actions historically. Morality certainly seems to be subjective for many.[/quote]
I think people weigh up their various options and for some, killing is not a completely out of the question route to take. Does a soldier at war have different morals, or does he ignore them, or weigh the outcome as being a worthy reason?
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Murder has been and will always be wrong. Granted, there’s room for debate about what is and isn’t murder but you’re never going to find a successful culture that tolerates, much less encourages murder.
[/quote]
Capital Punishment?[/quote]
If you are going to nitpick him…lets rephrase it as promiscuous killing.
In my opinion anything other than a biologically based morality lends itself to a bit of immoral action, but thats purely my opinion of course.
What constitutes promiscuous killing as almost entirely culturally or religiously based though. Generally atrocities performed on the other are deemed to be moral actions historically. Morality certainly seems to be subjective for many.[/quote]
I wasnt nitpicking - i was pointing out that murder does take place as a course of action perceived to be morally “good”
Killing is not murder.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Killing is not murder. [/quote]
but for the rule of law
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Every murder involves killing. Not every killing is murder. [/quote]
i didnt say every killing was murder, i think it can be argued that capital punishment is akin to murder, and its morally acceptable (good was the wrong word)
If murder is always wrong, then there has to be at least some absolute morals.
A moral isn’t like a physical law like gravity. That’s something that IS. You should not murder your friends is an ought. You ought not kill your friends, but you can choose to go against it and do it anyway. But just because you did it doesn’t mean that the ought changed. You still shouldn’t murder your friends.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If murder is always wrong, then there has to be at least some absolute morals.
A moral isn’t like a physical law like gravity. That’s something that IS. You should not murder your friends is an ought. You ought not kill your friends, but you can choose to go against it and do it anyway. But just because you did it doesn’t mean that the ought changed. You still shouldn’t murder your friends.[/quote]
Yes, that’s kinda the point I was trying to make…not sure if we are actually in disagreement…
-I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.
Guess I got confused by that. Ok, nvm, carry on.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
-I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.
Guess I got confused by that. Ok, nvm, carry on.[/quote]
I think murder is always morally wrong TO HUMANS, but not sure it extends to other beings (as in, THEIR conception of murder). When I mentioned conflicting morals, i meant weighing up killing your neighbour in order to save your family or something like that.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
-I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.
Guess I got confused by that. Ok, nvm, carry on.[/quote]
Morals apply to those things that have free will. Otherwise morals are useless to us because we can’t help what we do.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
-I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.
Guess I got confused by that. Ok, nvm, carry on.[/quote]
Morals apply to those things that have free will. Otherwise morals are useless to us because we can’t help what we do. [/quote]
Hmm, you’re right, however the fact we have morals doesnt prove we have free will, it only shows that we THINK we have free will. Can I ask how you would distinguish morality and ethics in the everyday life? Just trying to get an idea of concept of morality.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your reality exists because you exist. When you stop existing, your reality stops to exist.
All of [your] reality is processed, perceived and scaled by your brain, and you are nothing without your brain.
[/quote]
Who said anything about “your” or “my” reality. We may be completely wrong about what reality is, but we can know ‘something’ exists. Our perceptions certainly cease where we lose our mechanism to perceive. But I am not worried about perception, I am concerned with actualities.
That’s the conclusion of the cosmological argument, which we are not discussing at the time. But that conclusion is a necessary one to that argument, but I didn’t think we were talking about cosmology. Only that metaphysics exists and is not a human construct.
It’s not a human construct because humans didn’t assign these metaphysical entities thier properties, they already had them. If something already had it’s own set up properties, then it stands to reason that nobody assigned them the properties. Likewise we cannot change the properties of say, a natural or scientific law. The laws are what they are and physical matter follows them whether we know it or not.
The only thing man made about math is the symbols we use to represent numbers and functions, and if you want to get real technical, we didn’t really invent that eitther…It’s all borrowed.
[quote]
If morality is a force of nature it must be objectively true for all of us. You can’t apply caveats to morality just like you can’t choose to not be affected by gravity on this planet.
Yet people apply caveats to morality every day, “this is wrong, but in that case it isn’t.”
You’ll disagree, naturally.[/quote]
Well of course I will because it’s wrong. Morality is evident at the extremes and moral relativity breaks down at those extremes. And just to clarify, I don’t argue that we have ‘made up’ some of our own morality at a lower level, but it’s based on the basic tenets of morality. Now wheter or not they are applied correctly is up for debate, but at the extremes they are not…
Breakdown… So pretty much anybody agree except for the sickest fucks on the planet, that child rape is always wrong. There is no doubt that rape will cause a child grievous permanent injury. I am going to go out on a limb and guess you agree.
So now lets take a man-made off shoot. Say some people think going to a titty bar is morally wrong. The line of reasoning would work something like this titty bars are immoral because they breed impure desires, that can lead to behavior that can lead to that person fulfilling their desires, which can lead a person to choose unsavory ways of fulfilling those desires, which can lead to rape.
Now you can argue whether or not attending a titty bar is morally wrong, because of all the points of failure in between, but you cannot argue that child rape is not morally wrong because there is no way to make it right under any circumstance. There are people in the world who think it’s ok, like that Kony asshole, but their perversions do not make it so.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your reality exists because you exist. When you stop existing, your reality stops to exist.
All of [your] reality is processed, perceived and scaled by your brain, and you are nothing without your brain.
Your conclusion leads to an even bigger anomaly, god/uncaused cause. This is why your explanation does not explain anything with certainty.
Your confusion is similar to people who say, “oh well, evolution is not real because it’s just a theory.”
Laws of nature aren’t concepts, but our explanation of them are concepts. Math is a man made application of natural order. An application that works rather well, I grant you that.
If morality is a force of nature it must be objectively true for all of us. You can’t apply caveats to morality just like you can’t choose to not be affected by gravity on this planet.
Yet people apply caveats to morality every day, “this is wrong, but in that case it isn’t.”
You’ll disagree, naturally.[/quote]
I hope you don’t mind if I interject, but I have seen this argument given several times and I don’t think it really holds - people display varying morals because they dont just live by their morals, but are affected by their wants and desires, emotions and also are lead by those around them. I think morality probably IS obkective with respect to humans - we all have the same brain structure and perceive/conceive in the same way. very young children display a sense of fairness - I would say that is an argument for something underpinning our morality (evolution???). I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.[/quote]
One of the tenets of morality if freewill and the ability to choose otherwise.
Further, as I explained to Eph, relative morality breaks down at the extremes. For instance, Slavery, even when widely practiced and socially acceptable was still wrong. If morality were relative, then slavery would have been ok when it was practiced and a mere paradigm shift can make it ok once again.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your reality exists because you exist. When you stop existing, your reality stops to exist.
All of [your] reality is processed, perceived and scaled by your brain, and you are nothing without your brain.
Your conclusion leads to an even bigger anomaly, god/uncaused cause. This is why your explanation does not explain anything with certainty.
Your confusion is similar to people who say, “oh well, evolution is not real because it’s just a theory.”
Laws of nature aren’t concepts, but our explanation of them are concepts. Math is a man made application of natural order. An application that works rather well, I grant you that.
If morality is a force of nature it must be objectively true for all of us. You can’t apply caveats to morality just like you can’t choose to not be affected by gravity on this planet.
Yet people apply caveats to morality every day, “this is wrong, but in that case it isn’t.”
You’ll disagree, naturally.[/quote]
I hope you don’t mind if I interject, but I have seen this argument given several times and I don’t think it really holds - people display varying morals because they dont just live by their morals, but are affected by their wants and desires, emotions and also are lead by those around them. I think morality probably IS obkective with respect to humans - we all have the same brain structure and perceive/conceive in the same way. very young children display a sense of fairness - I would say that is an argument for something underpinning our morality (evolution???). I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.[/quote]
One of the tenets of morality if freewill and the ability to choose otherwise.
Further, as I explained to Eph, relative morality breaks down at the extremes. For instance, Slavery, even when widely practiced and socially acceptable was still wrong. If morality were relative, then slavery would have been ok when it was practiced and a mere paradigm shift can make it ok once again.[/quote]
i dont think morality is relative, its objectively grounded in our instincts and emotions, which are consistent in that the same triggers will apply for each emotion across all humans, and we all share the same instincts.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your reality exists because you exist. When you stop existing, your reality stops to exist.
All of [your] reality is processed, perceived and scaled by your brain, and you are nothing without your brain.
Your conclusion leads to an even bigger anomaly, god/uncaused cause. This is why your explanation does not explain anything with certainty.
Your confusion is similar to people who say, “oh well, evolution is not real because it’s just a theory.”
Laws of nature aren’t concepts, but our explanation of them are concepts. Math is a man made application of natural order. An application that works rather well, I grant you that.
If morality is a force of nature it must be objectively true for all of us. You can’t apply caveats to morality just like you can’t choose to not be affected by gravity on this planet.
Yet people apply caveats to morality every day, “this is wrong, but in that case it isn’t.”
You’ll disagree, naturally.[/quote]
I hope you don’t mind if I interject, but I have seen this argument given several times and I don’t think it really holds - people display varying morals because they dont just live by their morals, but are affected by their wants and desires, emotions and also are lead by those around them. I think morality probably IS obkective with respect to humans - we all have the same brain structure and perceive/conceive in the same way. very young children display a sense of fairness - I would say that is an argument for something underpinning our morality (evolution???). I think morality is not absolute, it wouldnt necessarily apply to to other species, and there can also be conflicting morals. Morality is GUIDE for how to live, not a law.[/quote]
One of the tenets of morality if freewill and the ability to choose otherwise.
Further, as I explained to Eph, relative morality breaks down at the extremes. For instance, Slavery, even when widely practiced and socially acceptable was still wrong. If morality were relative, then slavery would have been ok when it was practiced and a mere paradigm shift can make it ok once again.[/quote]
i dont think morality is relative, its objectively grounded in our instincts and emotions, which are consistent in that the same triggers will apply for each emotion across all humans, and we all share the same instincts.[/quote]
Actually, most humans have those biological mechanisms. When someone doesn’t, it’s a disease. You can call it either sociopathy or psychopathy and has varying degrees of severity.