The Existence Of Morality

[Balloon guy 158]

You know, those tired old things like a basis in reality and actual evidence of pragmatic effectiveness.You're doing it wrong. Everything you're arguing can be attributed to poor logic and anorexic reason.

Your debating style is that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.It is unproductive.You win.

[vbnautilus 48]

If there is a right and a wrong, then there is an authority.

This premise is not true. There is left and right, up and down, wet and dry without an authority, why does this distinction need one?

[vbnautilus 48]

This is a better beginning for a debate, a more focused attempt at explaining why there is a right and a wrong.I was just hainvg a little fun before.Most of human history has shown us that happiness and peace are not likely results from life. So why would morality conclude that it is and strive for this? It's almost like morality had a plan and was going to make it happen regardless of what happened. Almost like a design...

It's not morality that concludes our values, its our values which determine our morality. Because we want happiness by nature, there are better and worse ways to achieve it when living in large groups.

[Balloon guy 158]

I was watching this show on Travel channel recently that Guap turned me on to about tribal peoples. In the episode I saw someone from one tribe had killed the chief from the other tribe. This was considered wrong by both tribes and they had a whole negotiation process to deal with reparations.

chiefs aren't the same as regular folks...come on, that's a universal truth that you should be arguing for your side, the powerful are always above the laws that the rest of us have to live with.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Pretend I spelled decay correct.

I think various cultures have strayed from what would be objectively best for them and have suffered as a result, yes.

Which would be how morality would evolve yes?

Huh? Those would be two separate authorities. This only illustrates why "because someone said so" is a bad reason for considering something moral. We need a better reason for that. It doesn't have special authority, it just happens to be one of our best tools for discovering what is objectively true. If it's true that killing babies is immoral we can discover that truth through reason.

So you believe that reason and morality are separate? Does this mean that reason is your authority for morality?

Well obviously the unhappiness caused the child is what you are weighing against the 'happiness' achieved by the molester, but I think in this kind of case we can also see that molestation does not really even lead to happiness in the molester.

Sometimes its just a joke

[Spademan 94]

Your debating style is that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.It is unproductive.You win.

I am not debating you.You haven't got the knowledge base to debate the topic. You haven't got the set of skills necessary to make a solid logical and reasonable construct. Like I said earlier, it would take years and study and a desire to understand how to formulate idea's without contradiction for you to gain the skill set to work your way up a philosophical system from a starting premise. Your brain got broken somewhere along the line. Superstition had something to do with it. It is unproductive to you, surely, to have me tell you are wrong, but sometimes I just have to point out drivel when I see it and I haven't got the next few years free to teach you how to see why.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's not morality that concludes our values, its our values which determine our morality. Because we want happiness by nature, there are better and worse ways to achieve it when living in large groups.

So morality is an individual science. It changes with the person?People in India see poor people and for them morality is to let them suffer.They are culturally influenced. The question is did this grow from their religion, or did their religion grow from their culture?

[Balloon guy 158]

I am not debating you.You haven't got the knowledge base to debate the topic. You haven't got the set of skills necessary to make a solid logical and reasonable construct. Like I said earlier, it would take years and study and a desire to understand how to formulate idea's without contradiction for you to gain the skill set to work your way up a philosophical system from a starting premise. Your brain got broken somewhere along the line. Superstition had something to do with it. It is unproductive to you, surely, to have me tell you are wrong, but sometimes I just have to point out drivel when I see it and I haven't got the next few years free to teach you how to see why.

Sorry for wasting your time.Thanks for trying.

[Sportsmack 0]

I am not debating you.You haven't got the knowledge base to debate the topic. You haven't got the set of skills necessary to make a solid logical and reasonable construct. Like I said earlier, it would take years and study and a desire to understand how to formulate idea's without contradiction for you to gain the skill set to work your way up a philosophical system from a starting premise. Your brain got broken somewhere along the line. Superstition had something to do with it. It is unproductive to you, surely, to have me tell you are wrong, but sometimes I just have to point out drivel when I see it and I haven't got the next few years free to teach you how to see why.

Translation: "I'm way out of my league, so I'll turn the tables and make him feel like he is." Well played...I think.Oh and how bout coming up with a new slang term for God, the whole zombie mystical dragon lord warrior thing is getting old, not offensive, just old and repetitive. I'm sure you can think of something waaaaaaaay better than that.

[Spademan 94]

Translation: "I'm way out of my league, so I'll turn the tables and make him feel like he is." Well played...I think.

Yes, that's the exact translation.Good one.

Oh and how bout coming up with a new slang term for God, the whole zombie mystical dragon lord warrior thing is getting old, not offensive, just old and repetitive. I'm sure you can think of something waaaaaaaay better than that.

The thing is, my uninspired dotard, your Gods don't deserve better than that.

[Sportsmack 0]

Yes, that's the exact translation.Good one.The thing is, my uninspired dotard, your Gods don't deserve better than that.

i'm so disappointed

[rjkdb8 1]

It is amusing how deficient the 10 commandments are in terms of representing a complete recitation of moral imperatives. In fact, only two have traditionally been codified in the realm of criminal law, and those two are also arguably the only two that actually have to do with morality (namely don't kill or steal). But no gods before me; no graven images; no taking god's name in vain; keep sabbath holy; honor mother and father; no adultery; no bearing of false witness and no coveting the neighbor's house really have nothing to do with morality and none of those forbidden actions are against the law anywhere in the US.EDIT: now that i think about it i suppose bearing false witness is against the law.

[vbnautilus 48]

Which would be how morality would evolve yes?

That's one way sure

So you believe that reason and morality are separate? Does this mean that reason is your authority for morality?

I believe we can use reason to generate an objective morality. That's different than basing our morality on an "authority". Water is hydrogen + oxygen not because someone says so. In the same way murder is not wrong simply because someone (or something) says so, rather its because it harms our collective happiness and we can prove that it does.

Sometimes its just a joke

Yeah I know it was, but it was a good opportunity to spell out a little of the logic.

So morality is an individual science. It changes with the person?

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying there's a fact of the matter as to what kind of actions best serve our collective well being. That's why I'm not a cultural relativist. I think some cultures have their morality wrong.

People in India see poor people and for them morality is to let them suffer.

Not sure where you got that idea. In India the idea of giving to the poor is much more commonly accepted than it is here, which is how so many beggars are able to survive.

They are culturally influenced. The question is did this grow from their religion, or did their religion grow from their culture?

Religion and culture are not two separate things. Religion is a subset of culture.

[crowTrobot 2]

Hear goes the definition dance...How about you just say you don't want to argue unless we use your definitions?

in your OP you implied that we all agree your definition of morality exists. i don't.the good or bad of behavior comes from context. it does not exist as an intrinsic property of the behavior itself.

[Balloon guy 158]

in your OP you implied that we all agree your definition of morality exists. i don't.the good or bad of behavior comes from context. it does not exist as an intrinsic property of the behavior itself.

So Hitchens was wrong when he said morality evolved?Because your definition of morality is that the situation determines the morality.

[crowTrobot 2]

Stealing is an action, the moralty of stealing why is it wrong.

stealing is considered wrong because it's socially detrimental, not because there is some sort of evil floating in the air waiting to attach to the action.

Evolutionary survival of the fittest says I should get the best mate and procreate. If someone weaker has a prime female, a superior male should take her from him and procreate for the betterment of the species.

it's not that simple. that might work in some cases, but in others different schemes have apparently been more beneficial. for example some species have evolved to take a single mate for life.

Morality tells us that this is wrong.

our sense of the wrongness of an action either comes from our evolved instinct and/or common sense learned from experience.

They didn't both evolve side by side as some atheist try to claim.

if you're going to use evolution as part of your argument you should study what is known about animal behavior more. virtually everything humans think of as moral behavior exists at least ina simplified form somewhere else in the animal kingdom, including altruism.

[Balloon guy 158]

I believe we can use reason to generate an objective morality. That's different than basing our morality on an "authority". Water is hydrogen + oxygen not because someone says so. In the same way murder is not wrong simply because someone (or something) says so, rather its because it harms our collective happiness and we can prove that it does.

A physical truth s much different than a moral truth. Should we clone humans is a moral issue, whether or not we can is a science issue, they exist seperate.

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying there's a fact of the matter as to what kind of actions best serve our collective well being. That's why I'm not a cultural relativist. I think some cultures have their morality wrong.

In order for a morality 'to be wrong' doesn't there have to be a right way? Who gets to decide that any cuture is wrong?

Not sure where you got that idea. In India the idea of giving to the poor is much more commonly accepted than it is here, which is how so many beggars are able to survive.

Hmm. The Indian's I have talked to said that the poor are considered to have lived a bad previous life and are paying for their past sins.We had a group of them stay at our church for a week and I talked to a coupe of thems a few times about their country.Plus I have two friends who were missionaries. AND I saw Slumdog.

Religion and culture are not two separate things. Religion is a subset of culture.

I would argue that religion is a foundation of culture, not a subset.

[crowTrobot 2]

So Hitchens was wrong when he said morality evolved?

no reason to think it didn't, although it's probably more a matter of social selection than individual. hitchens was probably referring to social evolution.

Because your definition of morality is that the situation determines the morality.

the context meaning primarily the nature of the consequences determines it.

[Balloon guy 158]

stealing is considered wrong because it's socially detrimental, not because there is some sort of evil floating in the air waiting to attach to the action.

What about stealing to feed your family?

it's not that simple. that might work in some cases, but in others different schemes have apparently been more beneficial. for example some species have evolved to take a single mate for life.

If you were in charge of writing down the framewrok for how to evolve a species, this would be a dumb thing to write down.It goes against the basic premise of evolutionery survival of the species.

our sense of the wrongness of an action either comes from our evolved instinct and/or common sense learned from experience.

Ah yes, common sense, it is just right to think something is right or wrong. Which works very well as long as there is a right and wrong to compare it to.Without a foundational right and wrong meter, then common sense is a little too subjective.

if you're going to use evolution as part of your argument you should study what is known about animal behavior more. virtually everything humans think of as moral behavior exists at least ina simplified form somewhere else in the animal kingdom, including altruism.

And yet no one would expect any animal to act in a moral fashion. Cherry picking certain traits in animals while ignoring the rest of thir behavior is like giving a Catholic priest who molested a kid a pass since he also helped the poor.

[Balloon guy 158]

no reason to think it didn't, although it's probably more a matter of social selection than individual. hitchens was probably referring to social evolution.

If he was referring to morality, then you would say he was wrong?

the context meaning primarily the nature of the consequences determines it.

If the consequenses determine the nature of an act...then how is this different than the so called argument that Christians are moral because we fear hell?

[crowTrobot 2]

A physical truth s much different than a moral truth.

a moral truth reduces to a physical truth when you take the time to break it down to specifics.

[Balloon guy 158]

It is amusing how deficient the 10 commandments are in terms of representing a complete recitation of moral imperatives. In fact, only two have traditionally been codified in the realm of criminal law, and those two are also arguably the only two that actually have to do with morality (namely don't kill or steal). But no gods before me; no graven images; no taking god's name in vain; keep sabbath holy; honor mother and father; no adultery; no bearing of false witness and no coveting the neighbor's house really have nothing to do with morality and none of those forbidden actions are against the law anywhere in the US.EDIT: now that i think about it i suppose bearing false witness is against the law.

Yea it's weird how almost every country that was founded on these principles has done so well...I guess they didn't realize how bad it was to use Judeo-Christian morals in their countries underpinnings.Really too bad how aweful the countries that actively denied these principles have done so bad. I mean really really bad.Like by a factor of 100

[Balloon guy 158]

a moral truth reduces to a physical truth when you take the time to break it down to specifics.

No, a moral truth by everyone elses definition is a truth on it's own, regardless of the circumstances.Unless you hold that there are no absolutes of course.

[crowTrobot 2]

What about stealing to feed your family?

moral judgments are frequently subjective. i already said that.

If you were in charge of writing down the framewrok for how to evolve a species, this would be a dumb thing to write down.It goes against the basic premise of evolutionery survival of the species.

again it's not that simple. it's not hard to imagine an environmental situation that would favor mating for life with limited procreation, particularlyif there are limited resources available.

Ah yes, common sense, it is just right to think something is right or wrong. Which works very well as long as there is a right and wrong to compare it to.

it works very well if there is a pattern of consequence to compare it to.

And yet no one would expect any animal to act in a moral fashion.

tell that to lassie

[vbnautilus 48]

A physical truth s much different than a moral truth. Should we clone humans is a moral issue, whether or not we can is a science issue, they exist seperate.

I'm arguing that they are the same in that there is a right answer that can be discovered.

In order for a morality 'to be wrong' doesn't there have to be a right way? Who gets to decide that any cuture is wrong?

Yes, there is a right way. I'm proposing that we can generate an objective standard for what's right based on what best serves our collective well-being. Then we can show how things like suicide bombing do not serve our well-being.

Hmm. The Indian's I have talked to said that the poor are considered to have lived a bad previous life and are paying for their past sins.We had a group of them stay at our church for a week and I talked to a coupe of thems a few times about their country.Plus I have two friends who were missionaries. AND I saw Slumdog.

But I'm married to one! Yeah some Hindus think they are paying for their past sins, but that doesn't mean you mistreat them.

[crowTrobot 2]

No, a moral truth by everyone elses definition is a truth on it's own, regardless of the circumstances.

has anybody but you said that?

Unless you hold that there are no absolutes of course.

duh