LuftWaffle

 

No, computers do not work because of man's theories and speculations about the physical world, they work because of the operation of physics.

 

 

Nature doesn't rely on our theories, instead our theories are merely attempts at explaining what nature already does.

 

~

 

Beloved, I Don't Know This goddess "Nature" That You Speak So Highly Of

And I Can't Find Her, Neither In My Science Books

Nor In God's Big Book Of Jesus

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

So I Think You Would Be Wiser If You Were To Express Physical Reality By Using Rational Words Such As:

 

Creation Doesn't Rely On Our Theories, Instead Our Theories Are Merely Lame Attempts At Explaining What Creation Already Is And Does.

 

Note: See The Holy Bible To Uncover The Massive Failure Of Science To Correctly Model Both Creation History

And The Coming End Times Events And To Explain The Affects Of Sin Upon Mankind And Creation

And To Predict The Redemptive Power Of The Blood Of Christ

Upon The Souls Of Believers.

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

Love, Joe

 

Hi Fresno, the quote you're attributing to Schouwenaars is actually by me. He was merely quoting me in his response.

Hi jerryR34,

I've read through the article that you posted regarding the evolution of empathy. I'm not entirely sure what you're hoping to achieve by posting it though. The topic we're discussing in this thread is the nature of morality, or to use a technical term: moral ontology.

A good theory on the origin of morality would have to account for the ontological nature of morality. What you're doing is you're assuming that morality is non-real (i.e. subjective) and offering an explanation of how such a morality could have come about. But that merely begs the question: assuming what needs to be proven.
My position is that morality isn't subjective and I've offered reasons for showing that a subjective morality doesn't match up to the morality that human beings experience.

Suppose we ask a question regarding the nature of the automobile and I go and offer a history lesson on the development of the bicycle. Besides not actually addressing the issue on the table I've actually offered an explanation of something other than what needs to be explained. As such if you're trying to explain what a car is by explaining where bicycles come from, you've actually failed to explain what a car is, not so?

Likewise, offering an evolutionary story about how morality could have come about doesn't address the question on the table, and even as an explanation it fails to explain what needs to be explained, because the morality that the explanation ends up with is completely different from the morality it hopes to explain.

Here's why I say that:

The type of morality that you end up with given the explanation in the article is to put it plainly, completely arbitrary, for instance the article states, "Biology holds us “on a leash,” in the felicitous words of biologist Edward Wilson, and will let us stray only so far from who we are. We can design our life any way we want, but whether we will thrive depends on how well that life fits human predispositions."

What this says is that biology restricts us to who we are. Our thriving depends on how our actions fit human predispositions.

How void and meaningless is that statement? "Be what you are!" Really?

Suppose we are a violent bunch of bigots, predisposed to barbarism and hatred?

Well then evolution it seems restricts us to being violent bigots predisposed to precisely those very things, right?

It seems then however we are, that's what we should be. So if you're nasty, that's what you should be. If you're nice, that's what you should be. But that's can't be right, can it?

We're left wondering how one can get from a genetically determined behavior to a right or wrong belief about behavior. The article doesn't actually offer anything in this regard, but instead simply smuggles objective morality in when it urges us to "achieve universal human rights".

This smuggling in of morality is also perfectly illustrated when the author states, "Empathy is fragile, though. Among our close animal relatives, it is switched on by events within their community, such as a youngster in distress, but it is just as easily switched off with regards to outsiders or members of other species, such as prey. The way a chimpanzee bashes in the skull of a live monkey by hitting it against a tree trunk is no advertisement for ape empathy. Bonobos are less brutal, but in their case, too, empathy needs to pass through several filters before it will be expressed. Often, the filters prevent expressions of empathy because no ape can afford feeling pity for all living things all the time. This applies equally to humans. Our evolutionary background makes it hard to identify with outsiders. We’ve evolved to hate our enemies, to ignore people we barely know, and to distrust anybody who doesn’t look like us. Even if we are largely cooperative within our communities, we become almost a different animal in our treatment of strangers."

So if hating our enemies is just as much a part of "who we are" as "loving our neighbour" then why prefer the latter over the former? The same goes for xenophobia, racism etc. These, according to the article are part of our evolutionary heritage too. On one hand we're urged to embrace our evolutionary heritage when it comes to the nice things that apes do, but what does the author base his rejection of the bad things that apes do on? It can't be evolution because he believes that both the nice and the bad things evolved and that these evolved because they're beneficial. So, what does he base it on?

It seems the answer is that if something feels good, then it's moral.

"Our best hope for transcending tribal differences is based on the moral emotions, because emotions defy ideology."
"Emotions trump rules."

I don't suppose it's necessary for me to point out that making a moral rule which says that we should not let moral rules guide us, but rather let our moral emotions guide us, is glaringly self-defeating.

But worse than that, if the author is consistent he ends up with a "morality" that is completely arbitrary and absurd. Instead of applying reason we're better off trusting our feelings. "X is wrong" becomes "I don't like how X feels".

But this still hasn't actually answered why he chooses some animal traits to be virtues and some to be vices. If emotions are supposed to be our giude, why does his example highlight some emotions like "caring" but not other emotions such as rage or hatred?

The article states, "What we need, therefore, is a vision of human nature that encompasses all of our tendencies: the good, the bad, and the ugly."
That's all good and well if you assume that you can distinguish between good, bad and ugly in the first place, and therein lies the rub. According to the article there is no good or bad, just things people do which they've inherited from primate ancestors.

Now we can apply some common sense. Does the morality that the article explains match up to how we experience morality in our everyday lives. If we read about an act of terror where the perpetrator showed no remorse and doesn't seem to feel anything for his victims, are we going to be consistent and declare that since there are no feelings of wrong doing the perpetrator hasn't done anything wrong? Or if the majority of society has strong feelings that being gay is repulsive, should we let those feelings guide our understanding of morality?

If you're hesitant to answer yes to any of the above, then perhaps it is because morality is something different from what the article attempted to explain.

 

 

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

 

Hi Schouwenaars,

 

Since you claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the word, which is better:

To accept the truth and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions, or

To live a lie and pretend that there are real right or wrong actions?

 

I don't remember you answering this question.

 

I've also asked you: If it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it doesn't affect the survival of mankind, would it be wrong?

You've been asserting that every moral rule has a survival element, but surely if that is the case this question should be easy to answer.

 

That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with. And it doesn't mean that if actions might be not 'bad' from origin, that you should do them.

 

Raping is hurting other people. And hurting your own people is not very helpfull. Survival is also based on trust on each other. And i don't think you build a relation of trust if you rape that person.

For nowadays of course it doesn't really have a big infuence on the survival of the whole human rase. But not hurting people is an instinct that comes from the far away generation who survived because they had the same instinct. Because they were able to multiply, we still have the same instinct. Of course there are always people who don't have that instinct. But that's because everyone is different.

 

"That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with."

....and which one are you most happy with? Living a rational life and embracing what you espouse and living it out, or living a moral life by pretending that your actions are actually right or wrong?

What about those you interact with? Would you prefer them to treat you as if there isn't really any right or wrong? That the only difference between eating pork or eating you is a vestigial evolutionary legacy that no longer applies? Or would you prefer that they consider their actions toward you as having real moral significance?

In terms of rape: you're still not answering my question. Suppose it were possible to rape someone in such a way that it has no effect on human survival, would it be wrong?

You've sidestepped this question by simply assuming things about rape which aren't necessarily true. Let me give you an example: I read once about a dentist who used to rape his female patients while they were under anaesthesia in his dental practise. Apparently he had done this many times and was never caught because the women didn't know they were raped.

He didn't hurt anybody and didn't break any trust either. The victims simply didn't know that they were victims.

Is this wrong? Why? How did it affect the survival of mankind?

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

You're completely, missing Shiloh's point. If what you're saying is true, then legal systems would need to reflect these subjective moral values that you espouse. Instead basing verdicts on guilt or innocence, verdicts should rather be based on how the action affected human survival. While we all know there's a distinction between legal and moral, it's also a fact that laws are best attempts at codifying morality.

If morality is really just another word for "good for survival of mankind" then the logical consequence (which you need to deal with) is that legislation should change to match the new morality.

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

Hi Schouwenaars,

Since you claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the word, which is better:

To accept the truth and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions, or

To live a lie and pretend that there are real right or wrong actions?

I don't remember you answering this question.

I've also asked you: If it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it doesn't affect the survival of mankind, would it be wrong?

You've been asserting that every moral rule has a survival element, but surely if that is the case this question should be easy to answer.

 

 

 

 

 

If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. 

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit.

and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics.

so you trow away quantumphysics

however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics.

so i suggest you trow away your computer too then...

 

This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course.

 

Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating.

 

Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation.

It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer.

 

If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows:

 

Shiloh denies the big bang.

The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics.

Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics.

Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer.

 

See the problem?

 

I understand what you try to say.

You're right in a certain way, but a computer really works because quantum theories also.

 

No, computers do not work because of man's theories and speculations about the physical world, they work because of the operation of physics.

Nature doesn't rely on our theories, instead our theories are merely attempts at explaining what nature already does.

Your argument doesn't even work from a computer design aspect. A degree in quantum cosmology is most definitely not a prerequisite for studying electronic engineering and going on to design and build computers. So in every practical sense, neither big bang theory nor it's encompassing scientific field has contributed anything to the existence and operation of Shiloh's computer.

Use of a computer, thus, doesn't require belief in any of the theories of quantum cosmology.

 

 

 

This is something we hear quite often, but the problem here is that when physicists use the word "nothing" they don't means nothing, they mean something, and that something IS the quantum fog.

 

The quantum fog is used as a describtion of a size. Everywhere, but on a very very very small length.

The thing i described is quantum fluctuation: In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small values of t (time). This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.

 

I thought you were referring to QVF. The quantum vacuum isn't nothing in the sense of "Not any thing". It's a highly energised state and as such it's inaccurate to say that particles come from nothing.

 

 

Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

 

 

William Lane Craig is a moral objectivist, so I don't think he was speaking of morals evolving in the sense of the nature of morality, but perhaps in terms of moral knowledge.

Do you perhaps have the quote where he said this, I like to read it?

 

 

 

It was in a debate with Lawrence Krauss that he eluded to the idea that morality, in human history, has evolved.   Now, he asserts that we have a perfect moral standard to strive for [God].

 

It must have been in the debate in Brisbane where he actually said it, but here is the video where they reference his statement:

 

link removed

 

This is the tricky thing about morality.  I see where Craig is coming from, I really do.  I'm just not convinced that perfect moral standard exists.

 

Hi Bonky,

I had a look at the clip and it is as I thought. Craig isn't saying that the nature of morality itself has evolved, but rather that human beings throughout history has evolved morality with respect to an absolute standard.

Moral reform is only possible if there are objective moral values and duties.

I think you get it, but let me clarify by an example.

Martin Luther King fought to abolish slavery in the US.

Before then, slavery was common practise.

If moral subjectivism is true, then there is no objective standard by which to measure morality. Morality is based on societal preference and nothing else.

If the societal preference is that it's fine to keep slaves, then keeping slaves is moral.

Going against the moral preference of society is immoral, so if subjectivism is true, then Martin Luther King was immoral since he went against the societal preference of the day. Would you say that Martin Luther King was immoral, or does this seem counter intuitive to you as well?

After slavery was abolished, the societal preference is not to keep slaves.

In the subjectivist viewpoint one cannot say that society's morality is better with respect to slaves than it was before the abolition. At best one can say morality was different back then.

But from the objectivist viewpoint one can indeed say that society's morality is better than it was, since one has a scale to measure societies moral performance by: Slavery is wrong, society is no longer doing a wrong thing, therefore society is morally better.

So, William Lane Craig is being perfectly consistent with the objectivist viewpoint when he says that society's morals has improved.

Conversely when moral subjectivists point out so-called atrocities in the Old Testament, for instance, they're actually being inconsistent, because on one hand they're claiming that there is no real right or wrong, and then claiming that what happened in the old testament is really wrong.

Hope this helps to clarify

I'm just not convinced that perfect moral standard exists.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "perfect moral standard".

Think about it this way. Do you think that a perfect understanding of science exists? I would say no, and I'm sure you would agree.

But now suppose I asked you, "Do you think that if one understood everything there is to understand about science, that one would have a perfect understanding of science?" I'm sure you would say yes.

A perfect understanding of science would be an understanding that is 100% in line with scientific reality.

I think the same is true of morality. I don't think we have a perfect understanding of morality, but I do think that there is a moral reality.

Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

 

William Lane Craig is a moral objectivist, so I don't think he was speaking of morals evolving in the sense of the nature of morality, but perhaps in terms of moral knowledge.

Do you perhaps have the quote where he said this, I like to read it?

quantumphysics has mathematical and physical (observated) proof that something can appear from nothing in the quantumfog.

 

This is something we hear quite often, but the problem here is that when physicists use the word "nothing" they don't means nothing, they mean something, and that something IS the quantum fog.

 

 

 

If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. 

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit.

and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics.

so you trow away quantumphysics

however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics.

so i suggest you trow away your computer too then...

 

This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course.

Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating.

Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation.

It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer.

If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows:

Shiloh denies the big bang.

The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics.

Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics.

Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer.

See the problem?

Hi jerryR34,

I'm my previous post (#68) I made three major points:

In my first point I countered your claim that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". I offered ants and bees as examples of social species surviving without empathy. While you've claimed that this made your case for you, I don't see how because it seems that you agree that ants do not possess empathy. My point that empathy isn't a necessary condition for the survival of a social species stands.

The main argument I made in my first point was that both "moral" and "immoral" behavior can seemingly be explained by the same naturalistic mechanism that you're appealing to. You mentioned that male lions will eat the cubs of a defeated lion, and this is precisely my point. In human terms this would be considered immoral. If human being did in fact eat their young, you'd no doubt use this behavior as proof of our moral heritage.
In addition you've mentioned the Canaanites and slavery as examples of our animal instincts, but it seems you view those as examples of bad behavior. Notice thus, how you're supporting my point. The mechanism you're appealing to to explain the "bad" behavior of the Jews is the same mechanism you're using to explain good behavior in other human beings.

Developing this point further then we see the evolutionary mechanism explaining both "immoral" and "moral" behavior according to your paradigm, which means the criminal is as much biologically determined to crime as the non-criminal is biology determined in the opposite direction. In other words no real right or wrong, but rather just biological cause-and-effect. How does one get from this to saying that a certain naturalistic process is morally good and another naturalistic process is morally bad? Ultimately if we've nothing but  naturalistic processing then the selection of moral values becomes arbitrary and meaningless, in the same way as pointing to a cup of boiling water as calling it wicked.

My second point tied in with this, and you haven't addressed it at all. The whole empathy discussion really just takes us back to you original point that what is good for survival is good morally and what is bad for survival is bad morally. According to your view then, when we say "good" we're really just saying "improves survival of the species".
But there isn't a one to one mapping between survivability and what is generally considered moral. I have asked if raping something would be fine provided that the rape didn't hamper the survival of the human species and I have yet to get an answer to this question.
If morality is just a means of making statements about survivability, then all one would need to do to defend any action is to claim that you believed it improved the survival of mankind. You have not responded to this either.

In my third point I quoted you saying, "The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now."
I mentioned that if this is the case, then morality as you define it becomes superfluous. You have not responded to this.

In you last post you claimed, "The irony is you see the bible trying to make sense of this "animal instinct" we have evolved.  The Jews were lions killing the Canaanites who were in their way, but not their own.  They kept slaves, but were much more lax on the rules for Jewish slaves.  Even using the Bible, it is easy to see we humans as animals came from the same common ancestor as all the organisms around us.  Religion tries to tell us different, but realign ignores evidence."

It seems what you're doing here is reinterpreting the bible according to your paradigm and then claiming the bible supports your paradigm. According to the Biblical evidence the conquest of Canaan most certainly wasn't "lions" killing whoever was in their way.

In terms of slavery it seems that you're selecting a human behaviours that can be interpreted in a way that's consistent with evolution and then claiming this as proving evolution and thus that human morality has evolved from animal behaviour. This is at best a very weak argument, and it doesn't actually address the topic, which deals with the nature of morality.

I gave a very simple explanation a couple posts down.

 

I'm assuming you're referring to this post, "There are all kinds of examples of empathy in the animal world especially in our closest relatives, the apes, chimps and bonobos.  Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy. Evolution is simple...if a trait helps pass along genetic information the trait is passed on, if not, the organism does not live to reproduce. Very simple."

If so then it's not really a response to the question, "How does one derive empathy from a physical process?".

I would have to agree with Shiloh, this is merely a just-so assertion that empathy has evolved because it supposedly improves survivability.

Be that as it may...

You've claimed that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". This seems to be incorrect. I can think of a number of social species such as ants and bees that do not seem to possess an ability to have empathy. Would you care to justify why you believe that without empathy a social species couldn't survive?

Furthermore even among species that are claimed to possess this ability, their behaviour is far from what would be 'acceptable' in human terms. Wolves and lions sometimes eat their young for instance. The evolutionary explanation for this behaviour will no doubt also refer to increasing the survival of the group.

It seems then that a vast number of behaviours whether showing empathy or showing the opposite can be explained by appealing to survival.

Secondly, I empathy is just a means to increase survivability we're back to your original claim of "what is good for survival is good morally". Appealing to empathy hasn't really added anything new to this discussion which means we're still dealing with morality being an illusion to help human beings survive. As such you'll need to deal with the implications.

This means that if a crime, let's say rape has no apparently effect on the survival of the species, then there's nothing morally wrong with it.

Conversely an act that decreases the survival of the species is automatically immoral, according to this view. This raises interesting questions regarding things like birth control, extreme sports, homosexuality and abortion, but that's a different discussion.

As such any act can be justified if one believes that one's actions are best for the survival of the group, where group can really mean anything from family to mankind?

Thirdly, as you've put it in post #48, "The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now."

Since we're not subject to natural selection anymore what reason is there to care about whether our behaviour is good for the group or not? It seems then that not only is morality reality an illusion according to the naturalistic worldview, but it's a superfluous one at that.

So while you've claimed in post #52 that there is right and wrong, you've not shown this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

 

 

That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process?

 

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

 

 

Oh well...

 

Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't

 

If I didn't want to understand I wouldn't have asked for clarification on how empathy is derived from a physical process.

It seems though that you've lost interest in this discussion. I'm not sure how that places me at fault.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

 

 

That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process?

 

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

 

Oh well...

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

 

That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process?

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

I think most people would get my drift.

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

minus the last sentence wich is don't fully undestand, you just perfectly formulated my thoughts thank you. i couldn't describe it better myself.

but don't think this is something is just came up with. i have thought many months about this subject. i have really really thought it trough, also in discussions with others.

 

I actually addressed the question to jerryR34, but you're welcome to answer.

Since both you and him do not believe that there really is such a thing as right and wrong, it would mean that both of you believe that right and wrong are evolutionary illusions, not so? A trick to help us survive...

So while it looks as if certain actions are wrong, they aren't really wrong. And while it looks like certain actions are virtuous they aren't really virtuous. So is it better to act as if morality is real and embrace the

illusion, or is it better to embrace the truth and live as if there is no right or wrong in anything you do?

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

i think that any moral law wetry to make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

I would have to disagree with you that everything I think is good will help our species grow and everything I think is bad will hurt our species.

For instance, I think that sexual promisquity is morally wrong, but if survival of our species is the measure of wrongness, then there seems to be no problem.

I also think rape is wrong, but I don't see how rape hampers the survival of our species. It certainly doesn't hinder the survival of many other species in the animal kingdom for which rape is part of natural behaviour.

I think it's good that men stay faithful to their wives, but surely spreading ones genes around seems logical if that's what we are to measure.

It seems then that your thesis that morality is merely a function of survival of the human race is incorrect.

If what you're saying is true, then when we're faced with an action we can call it right or wrong by looking at human survival. So if it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it's pro-human survival we can call it good. Do you agree?

@luftwaffle: lawfull killing is just a nice and better word for lawfull murder. killing stays killing. taking away a soul and gift that god gave.

There is no such thing as lawful murder. Murder, by definition is unlawful.

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

Ahh ok. Didn't know that. I hope I didn't offend you by my question?

I don't like the term "universal moral law."   The real question is, is there an objective standard for judging what is moral and immoral?

I agree. Universal would refer to a moral law that applies in all cases, at all times and all places. While it may be argued that killing children only for fun would be a universal moral law, it kind of complicates things.

An objective moral standard is the better term because it refers to a mind-independent law, which is still subject to circumstance.

If i raise a human in complete enclosure, so that has never contact with other humans, he will only live by the rules in himself that he has by nature.

so when he sees a human, he will think it's just an other animal and he will try to kill it to eat it.

he will certainly not think: hey, i may not kill that one.

How do you know this?

i'll give another little exemple:

if you could go back in time and kill sadam hoesein, would you do that? (not including the time paradox)

you would still kill a person then, and that violates directly one of the 10 commandements.

The ten commandments but refer to murder, not lawful killing.

or if you see a person on the ground, who is suffering terribly, and can not be helped anymore, and will die in some hours.

his suffering is enormous, gigantic, he is about to lose his mind.

would you kill him to end the horrific suffering?

because if you don't, you only let him die more slowly but with an incredible pain.

Giving such a situation killing the person would be an act of mercy.

because of this, i don't think there is an universal moral law.

Would you say that there are objective moral values and duties, though?

By the way, what's a Schouwenaar? Is it like a person in a show. An actor or a performer maybe? Or am I totally off the mark?

Well, I don't need to defend or God.  If he told Satan to kill Job's children or if God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul that was his choice.  God's foolishness is better than man's wisdom.  1 Corinthians 1:25  God is above our questioning.

If only I had a dollar for every time I've seen 1 Cor 1:25 misquoted to justify some or other contradictory notion about God...

Hi Shiloh,

I just want to offer something to think about. Christian Philosopher Greg Koukl draws a distinction between gay-marriage and same-sex marriage, and I think he's right in this.

Gay-marriage refers to the identity of the "marriage" participants. So being against gay marriage is to be against gays marrying.

However, the issue isn't so much the so-called sexual identity of the participants as it is about the gender of the participants.

Those who are for natural aren't merely against gays marrying, but against any two people of the same gender marrying. Whether gay or just two straight guys hoping to score some tax benefits, both scenarios defile marriage.

As such I think it's better to call it same-sex marriage. This focusses on the gender issue which is really what it's about.

While it may imply that gays can't get married (unless the marry opposite sexes), the issue isn't the gays, but the importance of natural marriage.

I thought I'd just throw it out there.

Hi JJ50,

Did you take part in this discussion forum before under the name "justme50"?