The Existence Of Morality

[Balloon guy 158]

Well I use that only to counter Pascal's Wager, which is an individual game. The real tragedy is that humanity as a whole suffers the longer its mental concepts (e.g. "god", "self", etc.) keep it out of harmony with nature.

Sounds like someone is imposing his personal world view and experience on the value system that determine the meaning of life.While arguing that there is no value system except for one that we inventedWhile also implying that there is a truth outside of us that our connection to would be benefitial to achieve.While refusing to grant that this value system outside of us might want to invite us to fellowship with Him.That's what it sounds like to me

[vbnautilus 48]

Sounds like someone is imposing his personal world view and experience on the value system that determine the meaning of life.

I'm advocating the exact opposite. I'm saying that when we view the world only through the filter of our mental concepts we lose some connection to the actuality of what is there.

While arguing that there is no value system except for one that we invented

I argued that morality can be based on the objective truth of social life, not that we "invented it".

While also implying that there is a truth outside of us that our connection to would be benefitial to achieve.

No I can't quite endorse that statement. What I am referring to is the transcendence of the boundary between "outside of us" and "inside of us" since there is really no difference. I think thats perhaps the deepest spiritual insight one can have, and its entirely supported by science.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm just going with the flow here.I don't quite understand the question here. In what circumstances do we "grant life" to such a person? Are you asking why we refrain from murdering a sick child?

by sick I mean permanently retarded, or like any thing else that makes the child always dependant on others for the rest of her life.This is a much more realistic example of how morality evolving is fraught with errors.

this made me burst out in laughter, well done.

Tell JJJ I need the points for my stats, even though I have no clue what stats are determined by etc.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm advocating the exact opposite. I'm saying that when we view the world only through the filter of our mental concepts we lose some connection to the actuality of what is there.

Of course this implies that 1. we have knowledge of what is out there, 2. that it is different than what we connect with, and 3. the issue of having a bias makes us unable to see it for what it is, while knowing somehow that it is different than what we see.In other words, you sound like a Christian arguing that God isn't understandable because we are fixed in a time space condition and are trying to understand something that is beyond our ability.I fear you are going to get turned on soon by the athiest nazis soon.you might want to get those yellow stars ready...

I argued that morality can be based on the objective truth of social life, not that we "invented it".

What is the objectice reason for not euthanizing severely retarded children then?

No I can't quite endorse that statement. What I am referring to is the transcendence of the boundary between "outside of us" and "inside of us" since there is really no difference. I think thats perhaps the deepest spiritual insight one can have, and its entirely supported by science.

I would doubt you can suport with science almost any metapyschical truths, but even if I did, you have a filter of buddhism that is directing your opinions if you ask me. We are one blah blah all is one blah blah.It's only a matter of time before you shave your head and take up an unnatural fascination with gerbils.It was nice knowing you.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Tell JJJ I need the points for my stats, even though I have no clue what stats are determined by etc.

Sorry, I'm only tracking Off Topic General.

[vbnautilus 48]

Of course this implies that 1. we have knowledge of what is out there, 2. that it is different than what we connect with, and 3. the issue of having a bias makes us unable to see it for what it is, while knowing somehow that it is different than what we see.In other words, you sound like a Christian arguing that God isn't understandable because we are fixed in a time space condition and are trying to understand something that is beyond our ability.I fear you are going to get turned on soon by the athiest nazis soon.you might want to get those yellow stars ready...

woah woah what? I guess my point is getting lost because I described it quickly and its kind of subtle. Let me try a different way. Our mental representations of the world are always going to be distinct from the world itself. The map is not the territory. We want our maps to be as good as possible, but we must not mistake them for the real thing.

What is the objectice reason for not euthanizing severely retarded children then?

I'll give some more thought to this example, but off the top of my head it seems to me that we don't want to live in a world where we fear being euthanized because we are not up to mental capacity. Also, the value of people is clearly not simply their level of intelligence.

I would doubt you can suport with science almost any metapyschical truths, but even if I did, you have a filter of buddhism that is directing your opinions if you ask me. We are one blah blah all is one blah blah.

Depends what you mean by "metaphysical", I haven't claimed anything supernatural or unconfirmable by observation.

It's only a matter of time before you shave your head and take up an unnatural fascination with gerbils.

Went through that phase already, about 15 years ago. My mom refused to look at me when I shaved my head because I "looked like a cancer patient".

[crowTrobot 2]

and I take the transistion to PW to mean you guys admit to losing the ability to claim that morality evolved?

the transition was your fault obviously. otherwise everyone was getting bored because your lack of comprehension about evolution was making it pointless.

I mean you ( and by you I mean vb because the rest of you have failed to even remotely present any argument at all but instead have completely and totaly hidden behind the claim to authority defense that is the sign of a failed logical skill set)

you think no arguments have been made becuse you aren't capable of understanding them. as spade said when it comes to an objective understanding of even the most simple principals of something like evolution your brain is broke (that's not meant as an insult, it's a serious observation).

you have basically continued down the path of saying that man would pick the morality that has the best results, while ignoring all the moral issues that aren't results driven.

all moral issues are results driven if you specify exactly what you mean by morality. your argument depends on leaving morality as some vague thing floating around in the air.

I am curious how you would argue that the marol decision to grant that this person's life is more important than the family's financial, emotional, and practicle well being could have evolved from a darwinian evolutionary beginning that all 'learned' men believe?

because empathy-driven behavior has benefits for the psychological well-being of individuals and for social harmony. your example disregards both human emotion and the social benefits of valuing life and individual rights above all else. situations like this are way too complex to frame in terms of simple darwinian survival of the fittest genes.sorry if this was posted already, don't remember -http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergoo...0506_deWaal.pdf

[crowTrobot 2]

I am curious how crow and kramit are going to accept the notion that spiritual connections (ie connectly intellectually and emotionally with outside sources of metaphysical truths)

spritiual doesn't mean metaphysical in this case.

[Balloon guy 158]

Sorry, I'm only tracking Off Topic General.

Figures....I feel like a rookie player playing a pick up game who pitches a no hitter at night against the starting lineup for the NY Yankeees while running for governor with a reverse pyschology platform of Don't Vote For Me.Never have a chance

[Balloon guy 158]

the transition was your fault obviously. otherwise everyone was getting bored because your lack of comprehension about evolution was making it pointless.you think no arguments have been made becuse you aren't capable of understanding them. as spade said when it comes to an objective understanding of even the most simple principals of something like evolution your brain is broke (that's not meant as an insult, it's a serious observation).all moral issues are results driven if you specify exactly what you mean by morality. your argument depends on leaving morality as some vague thing floating around in the air.because empathy-driven behavior has benefits for the psychological well-being of individuals and for social harmony. your example disregards both human emotion and the social benefits of valuing life and individual rights above all else. situations like this are way too complex to frame in terms of simple darwinian survival of the fittest genes.sorry if this was posted already, don't remember -http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergoo...0506_deWaal.pdf

Wow you are completely blinded by yourself and you don't even see it.but you would have to be to believe in what you believe so I don't know why I am surprised.

[Balloon guy 158]

spritiual doesn't mean metaphysical in this case.

Of course not. No definition ever means what it means if in the meaning you would have to admit that something means something that you don't like the idea of it meaning that.I go into all your posts expecting this now.

[Balloon guy 158]

woah woah what?

Sorry, I'll type slower in the future

I guess my point is getting lost because I described it quickly and its kind of subtle. Let me try a different way. Our mental representations of the world are always going to be distinct from the world itself. The map is not the territory. We want our maps to be as good as possible, but we must not mistake them for the real thing.

This the whole "the observation of something changes it" theory? I never was sure I buy that...

I'll give some more thought to this example, but off the top of my head it seems to me that we don't want to live in a world where we fear being euthanized because we are not up to mental capacity. Also, the value of people is clearly not simply their level of intelligence.

I see the direction you are going, but we are needing to look at how this came about, not how we value it now.2,000 years ago could you say that this notion that we don't want to value life based on it's input to society was a viable argument that held water in any civilization? If so, then keep going back in time till it didn't, then explain how it could have.

Depends what you mean by "metaphysical", I haven't claimed anything supernatural or unconfirmable by observation.

but if we observe it, we change it...I don't know if that applies but I thought it was the correct response.

Went through that phase already, about 15 years ago. My mom refused to look at me when I shaved my head because I "looked like a cancer patient".

I teared up recently hearing about the school kids who all shaved their heads for a classmate who was going through chemo...but I cry at a dog food commercial now adays so there's that.

[crowTrobot 2]

I teared up recently hearing about the school kids who all shaved their heads for a classmate who was going through chemo...but I cry at a dog food commercial now adays so there's that.

i teared up when desmond called penny on christmas eve. i admit it

[vbnautilus 48]

This the whole "the observation of something changes it" theory? I never was sure I buy that...

No, not that. I guess I'll have to think of another way to explain it.

I see the direction you are going, but we are needing to look at how this came about, not how we value it now.2,000 years ago could you say that this notion that we don't want to value life based on it's input to society was a viable argument that held water in any civilization? If so, then keep going back in time till it didn't, then explain how it could have.

I guess there are two parallel issues going on here. One is about the origins of morality, (which I think started with genetic changes that bias towards empathy etc and later incorporated cultural practices, religion), and the other issue is what the correct morality. I don't see why I have to justify everything everyone has ever considered moral, especially since I think some of them were wrong. Also, are you saying that people never euthanized very sickly children? I think thats probably not true.

[crowTrobot 2]

Wow you are completely blinded by yourself and you don't even see it.but you would have to be to believe in what you believe so I don't know why I am surprised.

good response.

[crowTrobot 2]

Of course not. No definition ever means what it means if in the meaning you would have to admit that something means something that you don't like the idea of it meaning that.

has nothing to do with me. it's not exactly uncommon for people to refer to intense emotional connections or experiences as "spiritual" without meaning to imply metaphysical.it has more than one meaning.

[brvheart 1,752]

in the same sense as pretending you've found a loophole for why you don't have to worry about ending up in FSM pasta hell after you die isn't as much of a safety net as you pretend it is.

Have you ever even read Pascal's wager? In the wager itself it dismisses retarded logic, like some random all-powerful being that has never revealed itself to anyone being mad about something that only like 1% of the Earth's population has even heard about. You are no longer arguing against Pascal's Wager... it's someone else's wager.

unless the FSM eternally punishes those who use pascal's wager.better repent and stop using it just in case.

This is an example that has absolutely nothing to do with Pascal's wager.

Sorry, I'm only tracking Off Topic General.

You're like the butler in Mr. Deeds. Holy crap man. You responded like 7 minutes after BG made his post.

[Balloon guy 158]

No, not that. I guess I'll have to think of another way to explain it. I guess there are two parallel issues going on here. One is about the origins of morality, (which I think started with genetic changes that bias towards empathy etc and later incorporated cultural practices, religion), and the other issue is what the correct morality. I don't see why I have to justify everything everyone has ever considered moral, especially since I think some of them were wrong. Also, are you saying that people never euthanized very sickly children? I think thats probably not true.

No I don't want you to place value on individual moralities, in fact unless you hold that morality is seperate from ourselves, then no value exists for them because that would require an outside sytem of grading, any I think JJJ is busy right now.We have been dancing aruond things because we are trying to keep generic, as if that makes it easier. But the issue is: Where did morality come from.you have held that it is an ever changing value system based on society's needs and wants.I hold it is seperate from us and our attempts to align ourselves with it shows that we agree that there is a source of value that is greater than us, and seperate from us. I call this source God. you guys call it chance.So this example, how did we eveolve into believing that a completely unfunctioning child who will never function has a right to live, has a right to live?And crow's 'because we realized that being good was good' argument would be about the lamest direction you can go...so hopefully we can go a little better direction.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

You're like the butler in Mr. Deeds. Holy crap man. You responded like 7 minutes after BG made his post.

I don't know who that is.

I think JJJ is busy right now.

That doesn't seem likely.

[Balloon guy 158]

has nothing to do with me. it's not exactly uncommon for people to refer to intense emotional connections or experiences as "spiritual" without meaning to imply metaphysical.it has more than one meaning.

Everything does, and you dance around those meanings whenever you get stuck.It's your MOLike Telly Savalas and his sucker, opperate one way.

[brvheart 1,752]

I don't know who that is.

It doesn't really matter, but if you're serious.... John Turturro plays the butler in Adam Sandler's Mr. Deeds. And no matter where Sandler is during the movie, even in different cities, whenever he needs anything, Turturro is right behind him ready to help.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't know who that is.That doesn't seem likely.

I missed you man

[brvheart 1,752]

I missed you man

Everyone did.

[Balloon guy 158]

Everyone did.

And yet..he was here in spirit.Everytime someone made a judgement on another person's looks, everytime someone made a judgement on another person's likes, everytime someone made a judgement on another person's use of the search function...In fact, JJJ is one judgmemental son of a gun.

[crowTrobot 2]

Have you ever even read Pascal's wager? In the wager itself it dismisses retarded logic, like some random all-powerful being that has never revealed itself to anyone being mad about something that only like 1% of the Earth's population has even heard about.

i don't believe pascal even considered the factor of multiple different possible gods.obviously different people who think god has revealed himself think he has a lot of different, frequently mutually exclusive requirements for salvation. if you want to argue that simple majority of believers makes for the best odds of being right that's something beyond pascal (although no less silly), and it certainly isn't a freeroll.