Spirituality
18 Jun 06
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadCould you explain how a normative claim would result from physical forces acting on biological matter? Methinks the "evolved" buzz-word is fast becoming the “solve-all” of our intellectually-stunted and brainwashed society.
Morals are nothing more than a genetically evolved tendancy to try to live peacably with fellow members of our own species combined with culturally evolved 'norms'. This conflicts with a similarly evolved tendancy for selfish behaviour both at an individual an societal level.
The only 'moral' that I would consider absolute is 'do what benefits my society ...[text shortened]... lds population as being the basis for all moral statements whether they realise it or not.
The only 'moral' that I would consider absolute is 'do what benefits my society or individuals in my society so long as it does not significantly harm me personally or the section of society that is closer to me than the section being benefited.'
Why would you consider this as an absolute moral norm?
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseAs usual your understanding of evolution leaves much to be desired.
Could you explain how a normative claim would result from physical forces acting on biological matter? Methinks the "evolved" buzz-word is fast becoming the “solve-all” of our intellectually-stunted and brainwashed society.
The forces that act to cause the normative claim to arise are not physical in nature but rather statistical. And it is called natural selection. A living thing that acts acording to the moral code I described increases its chances of survival, any variation from that morality reduces its chances. We can therefore expect such morality to evolve both genetically and culturaly and that is what we observe both in nature and society.
As pointed out by Bosse de Nage this normative claim is held by animals too. And I suspect all living things manifest it.
And just in case your comment was directed at me, I am neither intellectually-stunted nor brainwashed. My intelligence is definately well above average.
Why would you consider this as an absolute moral norm?
As mentioned above, I believe that all life forms have evolved this morality, and most moral claims can be shown to derive from it. Most people would hold all other moral claims to be relative.
Even though the Bible tries to lay down moral guidelines the actions of Christians in general tend to be much closer to my statement and most will claim to be moraly justified.
The Bible itself states: Thou shalt not kill. It then proceeds to list all the times where killing is justified when the society or individual is threatened!
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSince we are biological matter, how else could a "normative claim" arise? By magic fairy dust?
Could you explain how a normative claim would result from physical forces acting on biological matter? Methinks the "evolved" buzz-word is fast becoming the “solve-all” of our intellectually-stunted and brainwashed society.
[b]The only 'moral' that I would consider absolute is 'do what benefits my society or individuals in my society so long as it does ...[text shortened]... he section being benefited.'
Why would you consider this as an absolute moral norm?[/b]
27 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs usual your understanding of evolution leaves much to be desired.
As usual your understanding of evolution leaves much to be desired.
The forces that act to cause the normative claim to arise are not physical in nature but rather statistical. And it is called natural selection. A living thing that acts acording to the moral code I described increases its chances of survival, any variation from that morality reduces it ...[text shortened]... s to list all the times where killing is justified when the society or individual is threatened!
Dang! The 'ol irony-meter blew a fuse. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You just have no idea.
The forces that act to cause the normative claim to arise are not physical in nature but rather statistical.
Amusing. So statistics are forces now? What next -- do pigs fly?
And it is called natural selection.
Natural selection n.,
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
Statistical force? Statistics is purely the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data; it cannot be the driving force of change. So... some species are being killed off by statistical forces that aren't physical in nature? You really took the cake this time. For a professing evolutionary fundamentalist you have a limited grasp of your own views.
A living thing that acts acording to the moral code I described increases its chances of survival, any variation from that morality reduces its chances.
Your moral code requires looking out for others. This means you'd reduce your own chances of survival and be selected against. Good luck in the rat race. Your views here are incompatible, contradictory and absurd.
As pointed out by Bosse de Nage this normative claim is held by animals too. And I suspect all living things manifest it.
Hum. Ha. Yeah. Just how does a non-reasoning, inarticulate animal profess a normative claim?
And just in case your comment was directed at me, I am neither intellectually-stunted nor brainwashed. My intelligence is definately well above average.
My comments were made in general, nothing personal; unlike the other gratuitous ad hominems I've used in this post.
As mentioned above, I believe that all life forms have evolved this morality...
Excluding perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan? Maybe we could throw a couple of the Christians and Bible-story folk in while we're at it. Heck, throw in Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh. Clinton would clinch this one of course.
Even though the Bible tries to lay down moral guidelines the actions of Christians in general tend to be much closer to my statement and most will claim to be moraly justified.
Kudos. *cough* Prove it.
The Bible itself states: Thou shalt not kill. It then proceeds to list all the times where killing is justified when the society or individual is threatened!
Ding! Ding! Bible-ignorance-o-meter red-lining. The Hebrew word is specifically "murder", not just killing in general.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseHal: Your moral code requires looking out for others. This means you'd reduce your own chances of survival and be selected against. Good luck in the rat race.
[b]As usual your understanding of evolution leaves much to be desired.
Dang! The 'ol irony-meter blew a fuse. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You just have no idea.
The forces that act to cause the normative claim to arise are not physical in nature but rather statistical.
Amusing. So statistics are forces now? What next -- ...[text shortened]... meter red-lining. The Hebrew word is specifically "murder", not just killing in general.[/b]
This is flat out wrong. Man is a social animal with few natural defenses. Cooperation with others is what has led to Man's dominance over other animals. An individual's survival chances are enhanced by this; how many infants would survive if they were not cared for?
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSpeciesist.
Hum. Ha. Yeah. Just how does a non-reasoning, inarticulate animal profess a normative claim?
The moral law (if you will) is built in. Many animals (not all: polar bears are a notable exception) display what is to all intents and purposes moral behaviour within their social group. Think about dolphins (which are highly articulate beasts, I'll have you know). So do human beings. Why do people who show nowhere close to the reasoning capacity you do still have an instinctive sense of when an action is bad?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 06
1 edit
there has been reasurch done which shows that the majority of people (and chimps) both have a built in, hardwired sense of 'fairness'.
EDIT: just thought I would throw this into the mix. morals are obviousely relative. don't know if this has been covered as this is a very long thread and i can't be bothered to read the entire thing. plaese say if you wan't me to explain why. if not have fun arguing.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseHal: Just how does a non-reasoning, inarticulate animal profess a normative claim?
[b]As usual your understanding of evolution leaves much to be desired.
Dang! The 'ol irony-meter blew a fuse. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You just have no idea.
The forces that act to cause the normative claim to arise are not physical in nature but rather statistical.
Amusing. So statistics are forces now? What next -- ...[text shortened]... meter red-lining. The Hebrew word is specifically "murder", not just killing in general.[/b]
It need not "profess a normative claim" in order for it to act in accordance with the principle embodied in the normative claim.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think this is the crux of the matter and something people often overlook. Please go ahead!
there has been reasurch done which shows that the majority of people (and chimps) both have a built in, hardwired sense of 'fairness'.
EDIT: just thought I would throw this into the mix. morals are obviousely relative. don't know if this has been covered as this is a very long thread and i can't be bothered to read the entire thing. plaese say if you wan't me to explain why. if not have fun arguing.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's what utilitarian means, but the formulation stated:
(I thought the word looked good in the sentence.)--It's pretty useful isn't it? Greatest good for the greatest number?
'do what benefits my society or individuals in my society so long as it does not significantly harm me personally or the section of society that is closer to me than the section being benefited.'
hardly meets that criteria.