The Existence Of Morality

[brvheart 1,752]

All I'm saying is that I know what's right and wrong, and whoever disagrees with me about that is wrong.

You're an idiot.

[crowTrobot 2]

I'm not so sure this is true. I think it's more like the way in any religion then there are those who more fully express the ideas than the general lay person does, those people are respected by the masses. So, BG is not a monk, but he may respect those guys as really doing their best to take the ideas of christianity to their full extent. My impression is that much of the muslim public respect groups like the Taliban for implementing sharia in a similar way. Because after all, they are the ones who are really taking the religion seriously.

obviously there's a large fundamentalist core, but i think it logically has to be true that the majority of muslims world-wide are proponents of non-violence. whatever they think the majority of muslims are certainly respecting a non-violent standard of morality that comes from global social consensus.

[crowTrobot 2]

The treatment of women

the vast majority of the world considers fundamentalist islamic sexism socially detrimental (immoral).

[speedz99 145]

You're an idiot.

Wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

Clearly that is not my side of the argument. My side of the argument is that actual right and wrong are rooted in biology and can be discovered through careful analysis, not by simple popularity.

So DNA is our 'guide'?We have evolved to feel that a certain action is 'wrong' because of a pre-programmed code in our DNA and if in the future this code gets changed, the previous action is no longer 'wrong'?

So science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is only a matter for individuals and society.

Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain

[Balloon guy 158]

The first thing we observe about moral rules is that, although they exist, they are not physical and don’t have physical properties. We won’t bump into them in the dark. They don’t extend into space. They have no weight. They have no chemical characteristics. Instead, they are immaterial entities we discover not through the aid of our five senses, but by the process of thought, introspection, and reflection.This is a profound realization. We have, with a high degree of certainty, stumbled on something real. Yet it’s something that can’t be proven empirically or described in terms of scientific laws. From this we learn that there’s more to the world than just the physical universe. If nonphysical things — like moral rules — truly exist, then materialism as a world view is false.Many other realities seem to populate this invisible world, such as propositions, numbers, and the laws of logic. Values such as happiness, friendship, and faithfulness exist, too, along with meanings and language. There may even be persons — souls, angels, and other immaterial beings.It becomes clear that some things really exist that science has no access to, even in principle. Some realities are not governed by scientific laws. Science, therefore, is not the only discipline that gives us true information about the world. It follows, then, that naturalism as a world view is also false.Our discovery of moral rules forces us to expand our understanding of the nature of reality. It opens our minds to the existence of a host of new entities that populate the world in the invisible realm.The second thing we observe is that moral rules are a kind of communication. They are propositions — intelligent statements conveyed from one mind to another. The propositions take the form of imperatives, or commands. A command only makes sense when there are two minds involved, one giving the command and one receiving it.We notice a third fact when we reflect on moral rules. They have a force we can actually feel prior to any behavior. This is called the incumbency of moral rules, the oughtness of morality we considered earlier. It appeals to our will, compelling us to act in a certain way, though we may disregard its force and choose not to obey.Fourth and finally, we feel a deep discomfort when we violate clear and weighty moral rules; an ethical pain makes us aware that we have done something wrong and deserve punishment. This sense of guilt carries with it not just this uncomfortable awareness, but also the dread of having to answer for our deed. Distraction and denial may temporarily numb the pain, but it never disappears entirely.

Link to above

[vbnautilus 48]

Yeah I don't agree with that stuff.Biology provides the constraints to the problem space within which we must find solutions to certain problems. And some solutions are better than others. In other words, whenever animals live in large social groups there are all sorts of problems that arise, within the context of things that are biologically embedded in the situation, like empathy, trust, pleasure, pain, attachment, etc. Moral "rules" are solutions to those problems.

[Balloon guy 158]

the vast majority of the world considers fundamentalist islamic sexism socially detrimental (immoral).

Ever notice how free you are speaking for the vast majority of the world?

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah I don't agree with that stuff.Biology provides the constraints to the problem space within which we must find solutions to certain problems. And some solutions are better than others. In other words, whenever animals live in large social groups there are all sorts of problems that arise, within the context of things that are biologically embedded in the situation, like empathy, trust, pleasure, pain, attachment, etc. Moral "rules" are solutions to those problems.

So the majority of a species's solutions to problem is what dictates morality?

[Balloon guy 158]

obviously there's a large fundamentalist core, but i think it logically has to be true that the majority of muslims world-wide are proponents of non-violence. whatever they think the majority of muslims are certainly respecting a non-violent standard of morality that comes from global social consensus.

Yet history and current events show this not to be the case.You sure are forgiving and willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Islam whereas you are convinced that religion as a whole is bad for society.

[vbnautilus 48]

So the majority of a species's solutions to problem is what dictates morality?

The best solution, not the solution that the majority like. For instance, trial by jury is a better solution than trial by ordeal, even though at some point in history the majority wanted trial by ordeal. It's objectively a better solution.

[Balloon guy 158]

The best solution, not the solution that the majority like. For instance, trial by jury is a better solution than trial by ordeal, even though at some point in history the majority wanted trial by ordeal. It's objectively a better solution.

To be objectively a better solution, you have to argue that there was in existence a way to measure the solutions and then apply this measurement to the two possible methods, then make your declaration.Mother nature not only doesn't declare whether or not a bus driving off a cliff filled with school children is bad or good, it doesn't care that the the event even happened

[vbnautilus 48]

To be objectively a better solution, you have to argue that there was in existence a way to measure the solutions and then apply this measurement to the two possible methods, then make your declaration.

That's right. When it comes to systems of justice, for example, trial by ordeal is a demonstrably worse way to determine the guilt of the accused.

Mother nature not only doesn't declare whether or not a bus driving off a cliff filled with school children is bad or good, it doesn't care that the the event even happened

We care. ( And we are the leaves of her tree. ) The biological fact that we are bonded to and want to protect our children -- we inherently value them -- makes driving off a cliff with them bad. It's a bad solution to the problem of how to best protect our children.

[crowTrobot 2]

Ever notice how free you are speaking for the vast majority of the world?

ever notice how you like to insinuate that stupidly obvious facts are somehow just my opinion?

[crowTrobot 2]

Yet history and current events show this not to be the case.

history is irrelevant to your question, and most muslims world-wide are currently conforming to a non-violent standard of morality.it's the minority that don't that happen to make the news.

[vbnautilus 48]

history is irrelevant to your question, and most muslims world-wide are currently conforming to a non-violent standard of morality.it's the minority that don't that happen to make the news.

Most of them are not participating in violence. But as to 'currently conforming to a non-violent standard of morality' I'd have to see some data to support that. I've seen polls which suggest much more than a small minority of "moderate" muslims agree that suicide bombings are necessary.edit: here's one: 47% of muslims in britain say they would consider becoming suicide bombers if they lived in the palestinian territories.

[Balloon guy 158]

Most of them are not participating in violence. But as to 'currently conforming to a non-violent standard of morality' I'd have to see some data to support that. I've seen polls which suggest much more than a small minority of "moderate" muslims agree that suicide bombings are necessary.edit: here's one: 47% of muslims in britain say they would consider becoming suicide bombers if they lived in the palestinian territories.

ever notice how you like to insinuate that stupidly obvious facts are somehow just my opinion?

well I think your facts are stupid too, so on that we can all three agree?Remember, to pretend that you are an open minded thinker, on occasion you have to leave room for the remote possibility that you are wrong about something.In your case crow maybe you should rent a second room

[Balloon guy 158]

That's right. When it comes to systems of justice, for example, trial by ordeal is a demonstrably worse way to determine the guilt of the accused.

You say worse like it means something...

We care. ( And we are the leaves of her tree. ) The biological fact that we are bonded to and want to protect our children -- we inherently value them -- makes driving off a cliff with them bad. It's a bad solution to the problem of how to best protect our children.

So then you are comfortable equating morals with survival instincts?

[vbnautilus 48]

You say worse like it means something...

In that context, it means more effective at determining guilt. If the goal is find out who is innocent, clearly you can go about that in ways that will succeed more often than other ways. That's what 'better' means here. It's an objective fact about the solution to a problem.

So then you are comfortable equating morals with survival instincts?

No. In the example you provided there is some alignment between the two, but obeying 'survival instincts' does not come close to solving the problems we have living in huge groups.

[crowTrobot 2]

well I think your facts are stupid too, so on that we can all three agree?Remember, to pretend that you are an open minded thinker, on occasion you have to leave room for the remote possibility that you are wrong about something.

remember to pretend that you don't use my quotes out of context every chance you get.only an idiot would argue that the majority of the world doesn't think inhumane treatment of women by islamic fundamentalists is immoral, which is exactly what you are doing.

[crowTrobot 2]

Most of them are not participating in violence. But as to 'currently conforming to a non-violent standard of morality' I'd have to see some data to support that. I've seen polls which suggest much more than a small minority of "moderate" muslims agree that suicide bombings are necessary.edit: here's one: 47% of muslims in britain say they would consider becoming suicide bombers if they lived in the palestinian territories.

i didn't say "small" minority. i agree there is a fairly substantial fundamentalist core that supports violence, but my impression is that core is definitely a minority overall. and this isn't really relevant to my original point, which is most of the world agrees with america about what is or isn't immoral when it comes to fundmanentalist islam, so BG's question is nonsensical.also:"according to a 2006 Gallup study in involving more than 50,000 interviews in dozens of countries, 7 percent of the world's 1.3. billion Muslims - 90 million people - consider the 9/11 attacks "completely justified""The Pew Global Attitudes Project surveys Muslim publics to measure support for suicide bombing and other forms of violence that target civilians in order to defend Islam. In the annual poll, the highest support for such acts has been reported by Palestinians (at approximately 70 percent), except for years in which Palestinians were not surveyed. The lowest support has generally been observed in Turkey (between 3 and 17 percent, depending on the year). The 2009 report concluded that support for suicide bombing has declined in recent years, especially in Pakistan, where support dropped from 33 percent in 2002 (the first year of the survey) to 5 percent in 2009"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing

[Balloon guy 158]

remember to pretend that you don't use my quotes out of context every chance you get.only an idiot would argue that the majority of the world doesn't think inhumane treatment of women by islamic fundamentalists is immoral, which is exactly what you are doing.

well I'm sure then you can provide some data for us to look at. I mean it is most of the worldMight have to skip the Islmaic communities, and most of Africa...then there is China...of course I think the Latin american communities would give you a small vocal group that agrees with you, but I wouldn't want to put my eggs in that basket.Or you could quit making broad generalizations with no basis for truth and stop leaving me so much ammo to mock you?I won't be holding my breath though, without Arguing to the Authority, you're debates skills are pretty much non-existent, almost as small a percentage as people who think there is no God.

[speedz99 145]

Pointless argument unless you very clearly define "inhumane". If you're talking about treating women like second class citizens in general, BG's probably right about it being possible that a majority of the world is more than ok with that. If you're talking about stoning women to death for being raped, which is probably crow's definition for this argument, then of course the majority of the world considers that immoral, and indeed only an idiot would argue against that. Amoral? Immoral.

[crowTrobot 2]

Pointless argument unless you very clearly define "inhumane". If you're talking about treating women like second class citizens in general, BG's probably right about it being possible that a majority of the world is more than ok with that.

what constitutes an immoral level of social inequality would be a pretty subjective subject among americans and doesn't really work with the original question. after all it's also a christian tenet to a lesser degree. by "treatment" of women i'm assuming he means what americans would generally agree constitutes abuse.

[vbnautilus 48]

Pointless argument

ummm... isn't that what we're here for?