On the most part religion(s) identified those traits both negative and positive and give examples of what the most likely outcome will be. Secular Atheism borrows those same morals generally, but without accountability.
Here you say religion defines the outcome of positive or negative behavior, thus providing "accountability". These outcomes are heaven or damnation, obviously, where you will be held accountable for your conduct in the mortal world for all eternity.
That's maybe an ultimate outcome? But that's a very limited and unknowledgeable view. There are outlines and examples for just about every circumstance and they all don't lead to the pearly gates or hells own kitchen. It can be a social circumstance where people just won't have anything to do with you. You set yourself up depending on attitude. With a changeable and mutable moral code what is considered normal at some point can actually be harmful.
The goal of humanity as a species, much like the goal of any species, is to survive and prosper, in that order. Different humans define that second goal in differing ways, but that first one is pretty much cut-and-dried - if you live, you've survived, and if you die, well, you didn't. Therefore, things that increase the chances of individuals and the species surviving are defined as 'good' and things that harm those chances are 'bad'
This looks very much like the work of Sam Harris. I believe that there are two good reasons as to why it fails. The first is that unfortunately this is a pretty large naturalistic fallacy. It may be beneficial for human beings to survive and to prosper but imparts nothing moral.The term 'good' as in beneficial and 'good' when used in terms of morality are not the same concept. Your work, however, detailed proceeds from this dramatic equivocation between these two words. This is a pretty radical claim, a claim that you have just lumped in, as if it were obvious.
The second reason why I this fails entails only a comparison of the properties of the concepts. All it would take to show that your position has some serious flaws would be to contrast a moral value with a societal values that pursues the two goals you mentioned and see if a contradiction emerged. We can however imagine all sorts of claims that the the murder of a human being on the grounds of intellectual capability serves the whole's prosperity, you mentioned Nazi Germany but on the idea that morality is drawn from survival and prosperity, you probably do not have the tools in your arsenal to condemn this as wrong. I like that you mention that your position is not objective, only descriptive, but exploring the paradigm is useful all the same. The focus of my second point is however, that the propositions you are building from are not descriptive enough. _________________ Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
As a collection of atoms we're bound by the functions of the universe, and there are universal truths that tend toward a harmonious life.
If: We are collections of particles bound by physical laws,
Then: there are universal truths.
That second one? It doesn't necessarily follow the first one. Your statement was made in a form that phrased it as a confirmed 'if/then' postulation, which is half of what this entire thread is debating. Now that I've explained the singular fraction of a sentence you objected to, would you mind actually addressing the point of the post, please?
The goal of humanity as a species, much like the goal of any species, is to survive and prosper, in that order. Different humans define that second goal in differing ways, but that first one is pretty much cut-and-dried - if you live, you've survived, and if you die, well, you didn't. Therefore, things that increase the chances of individuals and the species surviving are defined as 'good' and things that harm those chances are 'bad'
This looks very much like the work of Sam Harris. I believe that there are two good reasons as to why it fails. The first is that unfortunately this is a pretty large naturalistic fallacy. It may be beneficial for human beings to survive and to prosper but imparts nothing moral.The term 'good' as in beneficial and 'good' when used in terms of morality are not the same concept. Your work, however, detailed proceeds from this dramatic equivocation between these two words. This is a pretty radical claim, a claim that you have just lumped in, as if it were obvious.
To be fair, I wrote it at three in the morning EST. My intention was to label moral reasoning as a survival trait, not to equate survival with morality; that is to say, survival isn't moral. Morality is a tool used to aid survival. Obviously this is a personal opinion subject to (lovely, enlightening and bracing) debate.
Quote:
The second reason why I this fails entails only a comparison of the properties of the concepts. All it would take to show that your position has some serious flaws would be to contrast a moral value with a societal values that pursues the two goals you mentioned and see if a contradiction emerged. We can however imagine all sorts of claims that the the murder of a human being on the grounds of intellectual capability serves the whole's prosperity, you mentioned Nazi Germany but on the idea that morality is drawn from survival and prosperity, you probably do not have the tools in your arsenal to condemn this as wrong. I like that you mention that your position is not objective, only descriptive, but exploring the paradigm is useful all the same. The focus of my second point is however, that the propositions you are building from are not descriptive enough.
Nazi Germany is always a tough thing to mention, but I brought them up because, while they were engaged in acts that are more-or-less considered universally reprehensible (certainly it's pretty impossible to justify exterminating that many human beings at once in the absence of a sanity-rending medical catastrophe of some variety) their society still did all of the things a society is supposed to do for its participants: that is to say, those people not under censure by its social contract were protected, defended, and advanced by the gestalt. The same can be said of, say, Mexican society, or Canadian society, or pretty much any society that does not currently exist in a state of anarchy or civil strife.
Obviously there are not currently any 'perfect' societies. Part of this, I feel, arises from competing paradigms, and is thus unavoidable to an extent - as long as humans do the human thing and disagree with each other, there will be conflict. Part of this, of course, is due to the fact that just because society is a survival trait doesn't necessarily mean it's a perfect one; like any adaptation, it falls apart in some situations. A chameleon's eyes don't do much for it underground, yes? Likewise, the morals created and supported by various paradigms fall apart in some situations. Like all evolution, the result is an ongoing optimization process. Unlike most forms of evolution, paradigms take forever to die, and can be very slow to change indeed even in the face of extreme contrary evidence (look at the classification of parasites, as illustrated in Carl Zimmer's Paradise Rex, for a small scale example).
As a collection of atoms we're bound by the functions of the universe, and there are universal truths that tend toward a harmonious life.
If: We are collections of particles bound by physical laws,
Then: there are universal truths.
That second one? It doesn't necessarily follow the first one. Your statement was made in a form that phrased it as a confirmed 'if/then' postulation, which is half of what this entire thread is debating. Now that I've explained the singular fraction of a sentence you objected to, would you mind actually addressing the point of the post, please?
/cross eyed
Okay, we're not a collection of atoms and the universe has no laws pertaining to it. Anything goes baby!
Ethics are what you do to satisfy others' opinion on what is right and wrong, morals are what you do to satisfy your own opinion of what is right and what is wrong.
Ethics are what you do to satisfy others' opinion on what is right and wrong, morals are what you do to satisfy your own opinion of what is right and what is wrong.
I am a moral man.
Nothing productive came out of that thread anyway. The best one can do to make a case for morality being nonsense is play a deconstructive semantics game to make words meaningless. If I felt that was an intellectually honest approach, I could win every single argument in PPR. Better yet, I could ace all my college English comp classes by using random essay generators. There's no winning an argument against that level of (im)maturity. I've had two toddlers of my own, so I know how this game is played. The only conclusive statement you can make in that kind of situation is "Sit down. Shut up. Eat your peas." Once you get into an argument with a small child, you've already lost.
Nothing productive came out of that thread anyway. The best one can do to make a case for morality being nonsense is play a deconstructive semantics game to make words meaningless. If I felt that was an intellectually honest approach, I could win every single argument in PPR. Better yet, I could ace all my college English comp classes by using random essay generators. There's no winning an argument against that level of (im)maturity.
So much for the so called theology or thestic morality. Just come up with some nonsense and if your opponent doubt whether the subject makes sense, accuse him of word game or intellectual dishonesty or immaturity.
Quote:
I've had two toddlers of my own, so I know how this game is played. The only conclusive statement you can make in that kind of situation is "Sit down. Shut up. Eat your peas." Once you get into an argument with a small child, you've already lost.
What is ironic is that 'morality' comes down to no more that these - opinons and commands - not rational arguments.
Nothing productive came out of that thread anyway. The best one can do to make a case for morality being nonsense is play a deconstructive semantics game to make words meaningless. If I felt that was an intellectually honest approach, I could win every single argument in PPR. Better yet, I could ace all my college English comp classes by using random essay generators. There's no winning an argument against that level of (im)maturity.
So much for the so called theology or thestic morality. Just come up with some nonsense and if your opponent doubt whether the subject makes sense, accuse him of word game or intellectual dishonesty or immaturity.
Quote:
I've had two toddlers of my own, so I know how this game is played. The only conclusive statement you can make in that kind of situation is "Sit down. Shut up. Eat your peas." Once you get into an argument with a small child, you've already lost.
What is ironic is that 'morality' comes down to no more that these - opinons and commands - not rational arguments.
...You do know you're sinking below the level of the common denominator here, right? I've already postulated a system of morality with a clearly defined set of rational imperatives (an admittedly flawed one influenced by generations of thinkers before me). Many others have done the same, from Kant to Rand, with varying degrees of success/horror. Obviously morality as a concept is not unreasonable.
Joined: Jan 05, 2008 Posts: 3723 Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:04 pm Post subject:
01001011 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Nothing productive came out of that thread anyway. The best one can do to make a case for morality being nonsense is play a deconstructive semantics game to make words meaningless. If I felt that was an intellectually honest approach, I could win every single argument in PPR. Better yet, I could ace all my college English comp classes by using random essay generators. There's no winning an argument against that level of (im)maturity.
So much for the so called theology or thestic morality. Just come up with some nonsense and if your opponent doubt whether the subject makes sense, accuse him of word game or intellectual dishonesty or immaturity.
If words don't have meaning, there's no point in discussing it anyway. If you're really not that interested, why bother? You come off as nothing more honest than troll. If you're not trolling, then honestly, I'm puzzled as to why you'd persist in wasting your own time. I chose not to make any more responses out of deference to a simple internet forum axiom:
Does anyone really believe that the bible (or other holy books) were required to teach a parent concern for their children? In some ways that's the root of empathy. The smallest unit of morality. When they talk about sociopaths, what's the trait that is frequently mentioned? Lack of empathy.
Human civilization has been teaching itself to expand that empathy out to larger groups. Children ---> kin ----> tribe ----> faith group ----> nation ---> world civilization ---> life. That aids the survival of a social animal but obviously we arent very good at it yet and some are better at it than others.
Look at the changing morality of the age of consent. It's changed and will likely change again. It's not even the same from state to state. It's a moral calculation based on empathy for children versus the needs of the tribe, faith or state versus our current lifepans. As lifespans increase, it may increase as well. There may even come a day when it's considered amoral to send an 18 year old to war.
Joined: Jan 31, 2011 Age: 23 Posts: 5022 Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:19 pm Post subject:
simon_says wrote:
Does anyone really believe that the bible (or other holy books) were required to teach a parent concern for their children? In some ways that's the root of empathy. The smallest unit of morality. When they talk about sociopaths, what's the trait that is frequently mentioned? Lack of empathy.
Human civilization has been teaching itself to expand that empathy out to larger groups. Children ---> kin ----> tribe ----> faith group ----> nation ---> world civilization ---> life. That aids the survival of a social animal but obviously we arent very good at it yet and some are better at it than others.
Look at the changing morality of the age of consent. It's changed and will likely change again. It's not even the same from state to state. It's a moral calculation based on empathy for children versus the needs of the tribe, faith or state versus our current lifepans. As lifespans increase, it may increase as well. There may even come a day when it's considered amoral to send an 18 year old to war.
if anything the age of consent for sex will fall. _________________ //through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
