Morality, Religion and Atheism

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

Why don't we just call it "a baby," which is a matter of semantics, and have you justify the other half. Why would it be bad to "kill a baby" if morality is relative and one can just say "I condone killing babies?" Why even the need to dehumanize before destroying? We don't have to do that in wars, we just kill, right?

Well I’m referring to this objectively not emotionally. And these don’t necessarily reflect my views I’m just having a good time playing devils advocate here because it’s fun mental gymnastics and I respect you guys good **** here

Objectively when is a baby a baby and when does it sees being a growth on the mothers body and start being a freestanding human. I would say an embryo is a potential baby but if it cannot exist outside of the mother it is not a freestanding human.

Then there’s the whole should we force the mother to continue to nurture it until it becomes a freestanding human or is it her decision on whether or not she wants to nurture it until it becomes a freestanding human?

Some would say that she made the decision to nurture it when she got pregnant others would say she has a decision not to nurture it right up to win it can be a freestanding human


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

I've burned down some trees and I have survived. Actually, I ate well some grilled meat as the product of that burning, which was more important for my survival at the time.

You won't be able to insert science into discussion of morality because science has no morality of its own. I could equally well say that I won't survive anyways, or that I don't care whether I survive if I get my gratification in the moment. All valid positions if I am allowed to make them up arbitrarily.

Ha ha ha ha same here but I think we can both agree if we burn down all of the trees and kill all of the animals then that won’t be an option anymore and survival might get a little more difficult

Don’t take my word for the look what happened on Easter island


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Are you implying that everybody in a society must be 100% on board with everything that happens?

I'm not implying that, but the collectivist left does. I'm quite content to be left alone and not saved by anyone who would do it "for my own good."

I had an interesting discussion with a good friend who lives in Europe, a female, very left leaning, but also interested in discussing her positions. It was about "gay marriage," where I started by telling her that to me there is no such thing simply because it requires redefinition of the language and meaning of words, something I won't do under duress. It's not about people living together or doing whatever ceremony they want, it's about not forcing me to use the language incorrectly. Her argument was that I have to be converted and forced to use the new language because the act of disagreeing supposedly undermines their relationship. It's a flavor of "you have to do it for the communal good and you better know that MY SIDE controls what a communal good is." After I told her that I would like to exercise my moral relativism to opt out of her pseudo-morality the discussion became animated, but she had no argument.

Doesn't that sound exactly like something the Spanish Inquisition would pursue against heretics?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Then there’s the whole should we force the mother to continue to nurture it until it becomes a freestanding human or is it her decision on whether or not she wants to nurture it until it becomes a freestanding human?

This is actually the ONLY relevant question in abortion debate (and I would prefer if this thread didn't get into it, it's a quite different topic).

In fact, anyone trying to avoid calling it "baby" or pretending it's part of someone else's body (we are not amoebas to spawn) in order to avoid the phrase "killing a baby" is likely someone who understand the underlying immorality (per Judeo-Christian teachings). A moral relativist would simply say "I condone killing babies" and be done with it. His world, his personal restraints and values.

We will likely see the issue of abortion resolved through recognition that the baby is a human being from the moment it is created, with its own DNA and a separate body, but where there is a conflict with mother, another human being, who doesn't want to support it. As a moral issue it might be abhorrent to me, but as a legal issue of competing individual human rights, that of the baby and that of the mother, it might allow for some cold calculations. Akin to having two people on a sinking ship and being able to save only one.

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I think what you’re trying to do here is put words in my mouth

No I cannot prove empirically that there is no invisible order just like you cannot prove empirically that there is one

If more evidence comes to light then we can revisit the issue but until then it’s a moot Point or an opinion or a theory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everything I’ve said, by way of critique, follows from your view, which is a brand of either cultural or individual relativism. The critiques of these views are long established. There is nothing new here. Google it if you must. Some of the the logical implications of your view I have spelled out throughout this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Or perhaps their definition of a baby varies from the other half’s. It’s a baby a baby ones that can exist outside of the mother on its own? Or is it a baby as soon as that conglomeration of cells has been initiated? Not everyone thinks the same way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no longer a valid point, since democrats now support abortion up to and even after birth.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

This is actually the ONLY relevant question in abortion debate (and I would prefer if this thread didn't get into it, it's a quite different topic).

In fact, anyone trying to avoid calling it "baby" or pretending it's part of someone else's body (we are not amoebas to spawn) in order to avoid the phrase "killing a baby" is likely someone who understand the underlying immorality (per Judeo-Christian teachings). A moral relativist would simply say "I condone killing babies" and be done with it. His world, his personal restraints and values.

We will likely see the issue of abortion resolved through recognition that the baby is a human being from the moment it is created, with its own DNA and a separate body, but where there is a conflict with mother, another human being, who doesn't want to support it. As a moral issue it might be abhorrent to me, but as a legal issue of competing individual human rights, that of the baby and that of the mother, it might allow for some cold calculations. Akin to having two people on a sinking ship and being able to save only one.

Hey now can’t say that you don’t want to get into it and then straight away get into it :-)

The term baby is an emotionally loaded term conjuring of imagery is of a sweet innocent child outside of the mothers womb

The term embryo is a more accurate term for a baby that cannot be a freestanding human.

But we can leave it at that it’s an interesting debate and I agree with you that the relevant point is exactly what you quoted there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavidJosephson]

After reading this whole thread there is not much I can add to the conversation. one thing I will say is that if morals are subjective in nature and there is no objective morality nothing can either be right or wrong. One's beliefs do not make something right or wrong nor does the collective value of ideas make something right or wrong. a state, nation, or collective of people can always change what is either right or wrong. the killing of babies in the womb can now be considered justifiable, the raping of individuals can be seen as ok, the killing of human beings can be seen as fine because the collective believes they should be eradicated from the earth. we see this today around the world. if the collective does not have a standard of what is right ( this comes from God) then what is morally right can not be seen as wrong, and what is morally wrong can now be seen as what is right. this is all because the collective chose that what is wrong is now right. When Christ comes again, the world will not be filled with moral people but all morality will be lost.

Romans 3:10-12

No one is rightousness, no not one
no one understands
no one seeks for God
all have turned aside:together they have become worthless
no one does good
not even one

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by Grobie

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
First of all, I assumed when I said "society" it was a given that it was meant as a collection of individuals in a community albeit neighborhood, state, country, etc. considering that is exactly what it's definition is.

From your comments, I gather you believe morals are something that is immovable, unchangeable, and the same across the board.
Morality whether good or bad are inherently up to the individual to determine. But when you have several individuals, i.e. a nation (an example of a society) of people whom, lets say for arguments sake, agree that rape and murder is immoral. Then the consensus in this society is that rape and murder is immoral. Although, you and I are a part of this society we don't necessarily have to agree with the consensus. Let's say I believe murder is moral and rape is bad. You believe murder is bad and rape is good. I believe you have bad morals and you believe I have bad morals. We each believe that our own morals are good. We disagree. Since the consensus is that both are bad, then our society as a whole believe we have bad morals. That doesn't mean we have to agree. It's the consensus that we as a society of individuals have agreed upon. The whole point of this soliloquy is that we as individuals have our own sets of morals that might not always completely align with the society we are members of. I hate to break it to you, but there are already many members in our society who believe gun owners are immoral. It doesn't necessarily make us immoral in society, just in their eyes. Just as many in our society believe homosexuality is immoral. Or that people who don't believe in god are immoral.. You and I can go on and on, but this whole debate has become a moot point. I will reiterate good and bad are subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. Morality is subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. The influence of religion on morality is irrelevant as evidenced by our community here on CG. Many of us are religious and may believe in a different god than others. Many are athiest and do not believe in the existence of god. And many of us are agnostic whom questions the existence of god. Although there are many points of morality we agree on, there are also plenty we may not agree on.

Sorry, I can’t let a contradiction go.

You are simultaneously saying that society dictates right and wrong and that the individual dictates right and wrong. This is a contradiction.

If a society agrees to the following:
a) murder is wrong
b) rape is wrong
c) slavery is wrong

If you were to believe that slavery is okay, then you are wrong by definition. You can’t have it both ways. If one can dictate their own values, then society’s agreement is meaningless and non-binding. You have make the society the grounds for moral obligation, or the individual. Not both.

And while we are on the topic of slavery, society was in agreement that slavery was permissible at one time in American culture. On your view, slave-owners were justified in owning slaves at that time. Slavery, like any other moral evil, can be justified given the right time and place in history. I find this view of morality reprehensible.

Lastly, when you say that “society agrees that X is wrong”, what is the process or method by which they arrive at this? Is it arbitrary, or grounded in some sort of reason? I contend that, if they come to agreement, it’s based on something more fundamental, like “causing unnecessary suffering is morally wrong”.

On my view, it has always been the case that causing unnecessary suffering is morally wrong (known as the principle of mercy), regardless of time, place and culture. I contend that this is a basic moral fact. As such, the burden of proof is on you to show me that this would be wrong. And if you take up the challenge, please don’t simply state that morality is subjective. This is the point at issue, and to do so would a fallacy of begging the question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

taking something from somebody else is wrong, unless given permission.
people aren't born knowing this very basic rule (just watch some kids for a little while). sharing and even the basic concepts of possession and ownership is taught.

no matter what you claim as the source of your morality might be, the answer is always how and where you were raised.

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by theLBC

taking something from somebody else is wrong, unless given permission.
people aren't born knowing this very basic rule (just watch some kids for a little while). sharing and even the basic concepts of possession and ownership is taught.

no matter what you claim as the source of your morality might be, the answer is always how and where you were raised.

I agree, to a point. It is the grounding for morality that is at issue in this thread. Community agreement and socialization is only part of the picture. How do you know that you are teaching your kids correctly? There must be some standard that forms the basis for moral conduct.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by DavidJosephson

After reading this whole thread there is not much I can add to the conversation. one thing I will say is that if morals are subjective in nature and there is no objective morality nothing can either be right or wrong. One's beliefs do not make something right or wrong nor does the collective value of ideas make something right or wrong. a state, nation, or collective of people can always change what is either right or wrong. the killing of babies in the womb can now be considered justifiable, the raping of individuals can be seen as ok, the killing of human beings can be seen as fine because the collective believes they should be eradicated from the earth. we see this today around the world. if the collective does not have a standard of what is right ( this comes from God) then what is morally right can not be seen as wrong, and what is morally wrong can now be seen as what is right. this is all because the collective chose that what is wrong is now right. When Christ comes again, the world will not be filled with moral people but all morality will be lost.

Romans 3:10-12

No one is rightousness, no not one
no one understands
no one seeks for God
all have turned aside:together they have become worthless
no one does good
not even one

If there is no universal moral standard, the concept of sin is meaningless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

I agree, to a point. It is the grounding for morality that is at issue in this thread. Community agreement and socialization is only part of the picture. How do you know that you are teaching your kids correctly? There must be some standard that forms the basis for moral conduct.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

that is why i can appreciate and defend religion even though i am not religious.
obviously today's parents are often worthless and let the television raise they babies, and then what do we get?
basic and fundamental rules for behavior used to be instilled in much more of the children in a very consistent way when parents took them to church.
instead, they watch football on sundays.

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Well I’m referring to this objectively not emotionally. And these don’t necessarily reflect my views I’m just having a good time playing devils advocate here because it’s fun mental gymnastics and I respect you guys good **** here

Objectively when is a baby a baby and when does it sees being a growth on the mothers body and start being a freestanding human. I would say an embryo is a potential baby but if it cannot exist outside of the mother it is not a freestanding human.

Then there’s the whole should we force the mother to continue to nurture it until it becomes a freestanding human or is it her decision on whether or not she wants to nurture it until it becomes a freestanding human?

Some would say that she made the decision to nurture it when she got pregnant others would say she has a decision not to nurture it right up to win it can be a freestanding human


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To raise a critical thinking/philosophical problem here, “freestanding human” is too vague. People in comas are not freestanding. Neither are those in vegetative states.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DB>]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Yes it is a bit like Coke and Pepsi. A re-branding of the same old BS just with a different group of people at the helm

Religion has been dominating the world for thousands of years now and I think people are ready to try some thing, anything different and see where it goes

So I guess the question is do you have faith in humanity to self govern or does it need an overseer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One's view likely depends on whether you believe there is a Creator (a being beyond our understanding or reason) and the created....

Or.... we are just the random products of a random series of events. Just some "happy accident" cosmically speaking.


From the first view, we may derive and infer a significance in a relational sense... and morality has significance.

The second view, humankind is a meaningless accident, and morality is equally meaningless, other than perhaps as a "survival mechanism" that could be olbliterated by a random mutant space goat... er asteroid... er gobal ice age... er global incineration... or something.

History would suggest that placing "faith" in humanity is an empty hope.

Suggesting that critters who argue over the color of a dress or where to go for lunch are trustworthy to make "moral" decisions of higher importance seems a fools errand. Relativism and so many choices along the gamut of good and evil virtually guarantee a less than desirable outcome a significant percentage of the time....

If living in the current "all opinions and feelz are EQUALLY VALID" environment teaches us anything, it is that humanity in general is a mess!

[DB>]

As far as the whole "baby" discussion goes, be careful when entertaining arguments about "viability" - We spend a good bit of our brief existence dependent on those around us in one way or another...

If you declare that ONE life is unworthy as it cannot "survive" independently, you open the door to much mischief - do you think the recent "non-essential" label being put on a good bit of the population was correct? "They" could then declare that "non-essentials" were a drain on resources and expendable immediately "for the greater good".

Still want to place any "faith in humanity"? Relativism ends badly.

[Barang]

abortion is one morality that left/libs are so invested in. they reject and will not even admit there's a life at a minimum even with the evidence of ultrasound and hd.

it's always my body my choice but not giving the baby the choice to live. as long as it is in the womb and cannot live outside the womb is not human is what they say. what kind of reasoning is that except selfishness and callous disregard of human life. if it's inconvenient, get rid of it, it has no value mindset.

that's a morality straight from satan.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

To raise a critical thinking/philosophical problem here, “freestanding human” is too vague. People in comas are not freestanding. Neither are those in vegetative states.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would agree and both of those have outside parties frequently deciding what their outcome will be with regard to pulling the plug

The difference here being that these were people in the classical sense who experienced the outside world etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

Sorry, I can’t let a contradiction go.

You are simultaneously saying that society dictates right and wrong and that the individual dictates right and wrong. This is a contradiction.

If a society agrees to the following:
a) murder is wrong
b) rape is wrong
c) slavery is wrong

If you were to believe that slavery is okay, then you are wrong by definition. You can’t have it both ways. If one can dictate their own values, then society’s agreement is meaningless and non-binding. You have make the society the grounds for moral obligation, or the individual. Not both.

And while we are on the topic of slavery, society was in agreement that slavery was permissible at one time in American culture. On your view, slave-owners were justified in owning slaves at that time. Slavery, like any other moral evil, can be justified given the right time and place in history. I find this view of morality reprehensible.

Lastly, when you say that “society agrees that X is wrong”, what is the process or method by which they arrive at this? Is it arbitrary, or grounded in some sort of reason? I contend that, if they come to agreement, it’s based on something more fundamental, like “causing unnecessary suffering is morally wrong”.

On my view, it has always been the case that causing unnecessary suffering is morally wrong (known as the principle of mercy), regardless of time, place and culture. I contend that this is a basic moral fact. As such, the burden of proof is on you to show me that this would be wrong. And if you take up the challenge, please don’t simply state that morality is subjective. This is the point at issue, and to do so would a fallacy of begging the question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think what he saying is there Hass to be a distinction between the collective norm i.e. what society has collectively agreed to and the personal norm which can be variable from the societal norm

For example just because there’s a Democrat in the White House right now doesn’t mean every person in the country is a Democrat but it does mean that was the consensus of society at the moment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

If there is no universal moral standard, the concept of sin is meaningless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A more accurate description would be that the concept of sin is a human construct rather than a universal construct

Everything we view is viewed through the lens of being a human being with a earth planetary experience. From there at fractures further into cultural experiences on this planet and then individual experiences

Until we find higher life on another planet with culture we won’t be able to compare notes to see if this concept is universal or just a species-based bias


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I think what he saying is there Hass to be a distinction between the collective norm i.e. what society has collectively agreed to and the personal norm which can be variable from the societal norm

For example just because there’s a Democrat in the White House right now doesn’t mean every person in the country is a Democrat but it does mean that was the consensus of society at the moment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Being a Democrat is non-binding, so the analogy is unsuccessful. In order for social relativism to be legitimate, whatever is agreed upon is binding upon all, otherwise it collapses into individual relativism. What society decides is meaningless on this view. Again, you can't have it both ways and call it morality in any meaningful sense of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

A more accurate description would be that the concept of sin is a human construct rather than a universal construct

Everything we view is viewed through the lens of being a human being with a earth planetary experience. From there at fractures further into cultural experiences on this planet and then individual experiences

Until we find higher life on another planet with culture we won’t be able to compare notes to see if this concept is universal or just a species-based bias


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've assumed its a human construct, not proven it. Differences across cultures do not necessitate a social constricted morality. I've already dealt with that. The cultural differences argument doesn't work. Anyone working in the field of ethics knows this. You need a better argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by DB>

One's view likely depends on whether you believe there is a Creator (a being beyond our understanding or reason) and the created....

Or.... we are just the random products of a random series of events. Just some "happy accident" cosmically speaking.


From the first view, we may derive and infer a significance in a relational sense... and morality has significance.

The second view, humankind is a meaningless accident, and morality is equally meaningless, other than perhaps as a "survival mechanism" that could be olbliterated by a random mutant space goat... er asteroid... er gobal ice age... er global incineration... or something.

History would suggest that placing "faith" in humanity is an empty hope.

Suggesting that critters who argue over the color of a dress or where to go for lunch are trustworthy to make "moral" decisions of higher importance seems a fools errand. Relativism and so many choices along the gamut of good and evil virtually guarantee a less than desirable outcome a significant percentage of the time....

If living in the current "all opinions and feelz are EQUALLY VALID" environment teaches us anything, it is that humanity in general is a mess!

Yeah I agree humanity gives us many reasons to not have faith in humanity :-)

That being said look how far we’ve come and how far we can continue to go so overwhelmingly humanity strives forward despite our shortcomings

There was a time when humans did not have any concept of a higher power, the species survived

There was a time when we had a strong concept of a higher power, the species survived

Perhaps we are in a transitional period moving away from the old concepts and into A new level of understanding of the cosmos and our place in it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Hey now can’t say that you don’t want to get into it and then straight away get into it :-)

Guilty

Originally Posted by bugsy714

The term baby is an emotionally loaded term conjuring of imagery is of a sweet innocent child outside of the mothers womb

"Emotionally loaded" should have no place in determining morality, that's the whole point. This is the left's "my emotions trump your rights" argument, where "emotional compass" replaces "moral compass," which wouldn't be too bad if they didn't try to force it on the rest of us.

Originally Posted by bugsy714

The term embryo is a more accurate term for a baby that cannot be a freestanding human.

It's both, a baby and an embryo. Much like an infant is both, a baby and an infant. It's a distinction without difference in this case, purely for emotional reasons.

Or, I can argue that because tomato is a fruit, which biologically it is, you should have it in your fruit salad. It's not the nomenclature that matters, it's the end result.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

You've assumed its a human construct, not proven it. Differences across cultures do not necessitate a social constricted morality. I've already dealt with that. The cultural differences argument doesn't work. Anyone working in the field of ethics knows this. You need a better argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I’m saying is until we have further data there’s no way to prove it one way or another no assumptions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

Being a Democrat is non-binding, so the analogy is unsuccessful. In order for social relativism to be legitimate, whatever is agreed upon is binding upon all, otherwise it collapses into individual relativism. What society decides is meaningless on this view. Again, you can't have it both ways and call it morality in any meaningful sense of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think where I’m confused here is that I do not have a concept of some absolute morality that is universal and unwavering

I know what I feel as a human being to be moral and I know what society and religion say is moral. Like all humans my personal morality varies from the group norms on certain stuff but overwhelmingly it lines up

In such a rigid construct how does one accommodate that variability? If you vary from it you are a sinful person?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Perhaps we are in a transitional period moving away from the old concepts and into A new level of understanding of the cosmos and our place in it

If we are becoming a post-moral society through the mechanism of moral relativism and government law enforcement, then we are becoming an Orwellian society.

I am not saying it is not so, but I am saying that the primary purveyors of this society deny they are trying to "legislate morality" as a mechanism to both create a functioning immoral society and to enforce their religion, the pseudo-morality, on the rest of us. Recognizing that we, who don't conform to the wokeness du jour, are being persecuted on religious grounds by those who claim to be atheists is an important realization - atheists are indeed engaged in militant religious intolerance where they don't even understand that they are the ones trying to force conversions.

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I think where I’m confused here is that I do not have a concept of some absolute morality that is universal and unwavering

I know what I feel as a human being to be moral and I know what society and religion say is moral. Like all humans my personal morality varies from the group norms on certain stuff but overwhelmingly it lines up

In such a rigid construct how does one accommodate that variability? If you vary from it you are a sinful person?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have already deviated from the IMO. We have all sinned. And we may not like that, but at least everyone is on equal moral footing, and there is a standard by which to measure, make progress, note regressions, and so forth. Note that on your view, moral progress is a fiction. There is no way to tell whether or not we are either individually or collectively better or worse than we were a generation, century, or a millennia ago.

Without a “rigid construct”, all moral utterances are meaningless. On your view, you can’t meaningfully say that anything is in fact wrong. You are forever gesticulating on the basis of your feelings, but none of it means anything. A child’s suffering from abuse is meaningless. A daughter’s rape: not evil. It’s all just “some people did something”. In fact, you cannot even call yourself a moral person because there is nothing by which to measure your own behavior that has any bearing on reality whatsoever.

You may reject the above description, but I’ve merely traced the logic of your own position.

On my view, the world is populated with morally meaningful statements. There is good and evil, right and wrong. There is a way in which we mark moral progress, engage in meaningful reform, and hold people morally accountable. On my view, you are a moral person. And this is because I hold to a view of reality in which there non-material entities: values, information, concepts, numbers, beings.

I think that it is worthwhile thought experiment to consider the fact that the meanings of the statements in this back and forth are not physical. The physical letters are carriers of meaning, but they are not the meanings. And we know meanings exist if we can understand them. The understanding of those meanings are in your mind, but we cannot dissect your brain to find them. Your brain only holds electro-chemical signals and synaptic firing sequences. The meanings are not in your brain. Yet, they exist and you understand them, and they are not physical. There is no evidence that they are in fact physical. To date, there is no successful reductivist view that shows that the mind just is the brain; that thoughts are merely electro-chemical reactions. You can disagree with this, but your would be wrong. This is an area of my specialization.

So the fact that there is an invisible moral order should not astound you, as your entire life - its meaning and its value - is predicated on things that are not demonstrable using the tools of science.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I know what I feel as a human being to be moral


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is part of the problem. What you feel has no meaning outside of an objective moral standard. It might mean something to you, but so what? Morality doesn't mean anything until it applies coherently to more than you, which we have already established your view cannot accommodate.

As an aside, if you deviate from society's norms in some places, it means you are working against the harmony for which they allegedly exist. Are you anti-harmony and cooperation? Deviating from the tribe is not conducive to group survival. Should you care about such things? (oops, there's a possible norm!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by IVC

If we are becoming a post-moral society through the mechanism of moral relativism and government law enforcement, then we are becoming an Orwellian society.

I am not saying it is not so, but I am saying that the primary purveyors of this society deny they are trying to "legislate morality" as a mechanism to both create a functioning immoral society and to enforce their religion, the pseudo-morality, on the rest of us. Recognizing that we, who don't conform to the wokeness du jour, are being persecuted on religious grounds by those who claim to be atheists is an important realization - atheists are indeed engaged in militant religious intolerance where they don't even understand that they are the ones trying to force conversions.

I agree with you in the sense that we are moving away from the predominant religion in this country’s moral yardstick as a measure of the best expression of our society

But I propose that the old yardstick had some fundamental flaws that the new yardstick has the opportunity now to address

As a person who favors the old yardstick this might feel icky to you but it does not mean that it is negativefor society as a whole. Just different from what you’re used to



As a person who does not adhere to your religious views my view is that both yardsticks have been created by men so neither of them has any more merit than the other I remain agnostic until compelling evidence can be provided for the rather extraordinary claim

I also find it fascinating that people believe whatever religion they have been born into and indoctrinated into. More than half the planet disagrees with you but this doesn’t seem to factor into the equation

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I agree with you in the sense that we are moving away from the predominant religion in this country’s moral yardstick as a measure of the best expression of our society

But I propose that the old yardstick had some fundamental flaws that the new yardstick has the opportunity now to address

As a person who favors the old yardstick this might feel icky to you but it does not mean that it is negativefor society as a whole. Just different from what you’re used to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

icky?

late term or postpartum infanticide is not icky, it is evil.
sex transitioning for preteen kids is not icky, it is evil.
normalization of pedphilia as a sexual preference and not a sickness is not icky, it is evil.
the destruction of the traditional family unit is not icky, it is harmful to kids and evil.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

We have already deviated from the IMO. We have all sinned. And we may not like that, but at least everyone is on equal moral footing, and there is a standard by which to measure, make progress, note regressions, and so forth. Note that on your view, moral progress is a fiction. There is no way to tell whether or not we are either individually or collectively better or worse than we were a generation, century, or a millennia ago.

Without a “rigid construct”, all moral utterances are meaningless. On your view, you can’t meaningfully say that anything is in fact wrong. You are forever gesticulating on the basis of your feelings, but none of it means anything. A child’s suffering from abuse is meaningless. A daughter’s rape: not evil. It’s all just “some people did something”. In fact, you cannot even call yourself a moral person because there is nothing by which to measure your own behavior that has any bearing on reality whatsoever.

You may reject the above description, but I’ve merely traced the logic of your own position.

On my view, the world is populated with morally meaningful statements. There is good and evil, right and wrong. There is a way in which we mark moral progress, engage in meaningful reform, and hold people morally accountable. On my view, you are a moral person. And this is because I hold to a view of reality in which there non-material entities: values, information, concepts, numbers, beings.

I think that it is worthwhile thought experiment to consider the fact that the meanings of the statements in this back and forth are not physical. The physical letters are carriers of meaning, but they are not the meanings. And we know meanings exist if we can understand them. The understanding of those meanings are in your mind, but we cannot dissect your brain to find them. Your brain only holds electro-chemical signals and synaptic firing sequences. The meanings are not in your brain. Yet, they exist and you understand them, and they are not physical. There is no evidence that they are in fact physical. To date, there is no successful reductivist view that shows that the mind just is the brain; that thoughts are merely electro-chemical reactions. You can disagree with this, but your would be wrong. This is an area of my specialization.

So the fact that there is an invisible moral order should not astound you, as your entire life - its meaning and its value - is predicated on things that are not demonstrable using the tools of science.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not yet demonstrable but that’s a beautiful thing about science it doesn’t hold to absolutes, it acknowledges it shortcomings and it always strives to be better

Technology will catch up and eventually we will understand more about how the brain works look how far we’ve come in the last 100 years.

It is my view that religious beliefs are being phased out as the need for magical explanations are put to pasture by technical explanations and understanding


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Not yet demonstrable but that’s a beautiful thing about science it doesn’t hold to absolutes, it acknowledges it shortcomings and it always strives to be better

Technology will catch up and eventually we will understand more about how the brain works look how far we’ve come in the last 100 years.

It is my view that religious beliefs are being phased out as the need for magical explanations are put to pasture by technical explanations and understanding


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This tells me that you don’t understand the conceptual problems associated with a completely physical view of reality, and as it specifically relates to the mind/body problem. And there are no arguments from possible future states of affairs save the fact that they are possible, but they don’t mean anything until it is actual.

I leave the thread now for good. Thank you for this exchange and your time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by theLBC

icky?

late term or postpartum infanticide is not icky, it is evil.
sex transitioning for preteen kids is not icky, it is evil.
normalization of pedphilia as a sexual preference and not a sickness is not icky, it is evil.
the destruction of the traditional family unit is not icky, it is harmful to kids and evil.

Evil is a loaded term

The child born into a life of neglect and poverty leading to a life of crime?

The child that is born with horrendous birth defects and will know nothing but suffering?

The child that is forced to deny how they feel and has a life of depression and suicide?

None of those are evil to you?

Is that because your religion has taught you that this type of suffering is somehow second class suffering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Evil is a loaded term

The child born into a life of neglect and poverty leading to a life of crime?

The child that is born with horrendous birth defects and will know nothing but suffering?

The child that is forced to deny how they feel and has a life of depression and suicide?

None of those are evil to you?

Is that because your religion has taught you that this type of suffering is somehow second class suffering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The child born into a life of neglect and poverty leading to a life of crime?

a child raised in a family without his biological father is much more likely to be poor and end up in prison. yes, the promotion of the single parent family by rewarding women financially to keep the father out of the household is evil

The child that is born with horrendous birth defects and will know nothing but suffering?

false argument.

The child that is forced to deny how they feel and has a life of depression and suicide?

a child that lives in a household with a male that is not their biological father is up to 40x more likely to be abused or neglected. pure evil.

None of those are evil to you?

it is evil to have sex and produce a child that you can't care for, or don't want to.

Is that because your religion has taught you that this type of suffering is somehow second class suffering?

religion has taught me to be responsible for my actions.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

This is part of the problem. What you feel has no meaning outside of an objective moral standard. It might mean something to you, but so what? Morality doesn't mean anything until it applies coherently to more than you, which we have already established your view cannot accommodate.

As an aside, if you deviate from society's norms in some places, it means you are working against the harmony for which they allegedly exist. Are you anti-harmony and cooperation? Deviating from the tribe is not conducive to group survival. Should you care about such things? (oops, there's a possible norm!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would not societies standard be an objective moral Standard?

Or is it that in your understanding of the word moral it relates to a supernatural Standard?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by theLBC

The child born into a life of neglect and poverty leading to a life of crime?

a child raised in a family without his biological father is much more likely to be poor and end up in prison. yes, the promotion of the single parent family by rewarding women financially to keep the father out of the household is evil

The child that is born with horrendous birth defects and will know nothing but suffering?

false argument.

The child that is forced to deny how they feel and has a life of depression and suicide?

a child that lives in a household with a male that is not their biological father is up to 40x more likely to be abused or neglected. pure evil.

None of those are evil to you?

it is evil to have sex and produce a child that you can't care for, or don't want to.

Is that because your religion has taught you that this type of suffering is somehow second class suffering?

religion has taught me to be responsible for my actions.

Oh man you Duct around everything there!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Would not societies standard be an objective moral Standard?

Or is it that in your understanding of the word moral it relates to a supernatural Standard?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An objective moral standard is one that applies to all people at all times and never changes, regardless of what those people believe. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be supernatural. The aforementioned principle of mercy - do not cause unnecessary suffering - applies to all people at all times. It never changes, on my view. It has always been true, even if we failed to know it, not unlike the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2 was always true, even if we couldn’t articulate it until Pythagoras).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

This tells me that you don’t understand the conceptual problems associated with a completely physical view of reality, and as it specifically relates to the mind/body problem. And there are no arguments from possible future states of affairs save the fact that they are possible, but they don’t mean anything until it is actual.

I leave the thread now for good. Thank you for this exchange and your time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are correct, I come from a background of science without any religious indoctrination. While I did have superficial exposure as a child it never made any sense to me.

My brain has an affinity for tangible things and I remain blissfully ignorant of many philosophers and philosophies

I do appreciate you taking The time to do the dance with me and I’m starting to become interested a little more in the philosophy that exists outside of the physical world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

An objective moral standard is one that applies to all people at all times and never changes, regardless of what those people believe. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be supernatural. The aforementioned principle of mercy - do not cause unnecessary suffering - applies to all people at all times. It never changes, on my view. It has always been true, even if we failed to know it, not unlike the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2 was always true, even if we couldn’t articulate it until Pythagoras).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is interesting as we do seem to have a gut reaction instinctively to suffering… At least those of us without psychopathic personality disorders

Where we draw the line between that being hardwired into us as a social species that had to exist in closely knit groups in order to survive or that being a divine truth is the area of debate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk