Spirituality
18 Jun 06
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI guess I creatively interpreted twhitehead's post to suit my own agenda. Sorry, twhitehead.
That's what utilitarian means, but the formulation stated:
'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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 06
moral relitivity simply states that some bad things are worse than other bad things. for example it is usually considered bad to kill a human being. however how bad is it to kill an old suffering individual who nolonger enjoys life and wants to die (assisted suicide in effect), is this as bad as killing a young fit healthy person in the prime of life who deos not wish to die. how about if you see somebody running down the street with a machine gun shooting people indescriminently and you kill them (assume you kill each one with a single instantly fatel shot to the head, just for fair comparison perposes). you may argue over which is worse. but few will give them equivilence.
a starving child steals an apple from a stall, is this as bad as a jewl feith who breaks into your home and snatches the family hairlooms? both commited theft, but I would strongly contend that one is a far worse crime than the other. I would also contend that they are both less wrong than the act of killing the young person who was in the prime of life. dropping an atomic bomb on a city killing hundreds of thousands and maiming countless more, is a horendouse act. but perhaps not dropping it and causeing a vastly greater number of deaths by fighting conventionally (I refer of course to hiroshimer) is possibly worse. moral absolutes over simplify things. life is complex and mostly made up of varying shades of grey (moraly speaking). you can (and should) argue endlessly over whether one act is good or bad , or better or worse than another act, but never be in any doubt that some acts are worse than other acts. and that something that is a heniouse crime when commited under one set of circumstances is not when commited by someone else under another set of circumstances.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseObjective morality: A normative claim about right and wrong that would be universally applicable.
Objective morality: A normative claim about right and wrong that would be universally applicable.
An example of an objective moral claim: it is morally wrong for all peoples of all cultures to torture babies for fun; this action aught not to be done.
You will find normative claims in all societies, so it is not the definition of "morality" pe ...[text shortened]... uld have to agree with this stance -- except if you want to argue that "might makes right".
Normative: Of, relating to, or prescribing a norm or standard: normative grammar.
Who's norm? Who's standard? What standard or norm? Notice how it refers to a norm or standard, implying that there are more than one.
What are "right" and "wrong"?
An example of an objective moral claim: it is morally wrong for all peoples of all cultures to torture babies for fun; this action aught not to be done.
That is simply one (or more than one) person's opinion. That person feels that this action ought not be done by anybody. It's universal only if you accept this person's opinion first.
You will find normative claims in all societies
And are they all the same?
IMO, a moral relativist would have to agree with this stance -- except if you want to argue that "might makes right".
Those with might are capable of and do impose what they feel is right on others. In a sense, might makes right - if only because those with might get to decide what moral system is applied in reality and which one is taught to children.
There are biological similarities among people with respect to conscience and a sense of that vague idea "morality" - but these similarities aren't absolute. People, like all organisms, have genetic variation, and this applies just as much to any genes that regulate the sense of "morality" or conscience as to any others.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would agree and add that a large part of a persons morality is infact in there upbringing. while there asre exceptions the majority of ones morals come from your parents and/or peers from your youth. the conditions from when you grow up can totaly over ride any basic inbuilt morality there might be.
There are biological similarities among people with respect to conscience and a sense of that vague idea "morality" - but these similarities aren't absolute. People, like all organisms, have genetic variation, and this applies just as much to any genes that regulate the sense of "morality" or conscience as to any others.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI know animals have affection/love for organisms they know about. They are not capable of abstracting this affection/love to the entirety of all feeling beings. If you restrict the utilitarianism to only other dogs, you may be right.
You've obviously never "owned" a dog.
Then again, maybe they are simply incapable of understanding that organisms that are not dogs or "adopted dogs" (like humans who are seen as part of the pack) are capable of happiness or suffering.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's not a question of what they think but what they do. Mammal behaviour can be broadly construed as utilitarian (with the exception of those cub-gobbling polar bears). Besides, human beings tend to restrict their utilitarianism to their own society, too, echoing dogs in that respect.
I know animals have affection/love for organisms they know about. They are not capable of abstracting this affection/love to the entirety of all feeling beings. If you restrict the utilitarianism to only other dogs, you may be right.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI see you have resorted to resorting to misinterpretation because you have no real arguement to present.
Amusing. So statistics are forces now? What next -- do pigs fly?
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.
I clearly said statistical not statistics. To make it even clearer I will say statistical in nature. That is, to understand natural selection you must have an understanding of statistics and probability. The word 'tend' appears twice in your definition of natural selection, clearly indicating a statistical nature.
Your thoughts are created by electrical and chemical reactions in your brain. Do you therefore say your thought are physical in nature?
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
Why would it reduce my chance of survival? Even rats live in comunities and for good reason.
Hum. Ha. Yeah. Just how does a non-reasoning, inarticulate animal profess a normative claim?
I clearly said 'manifest' not 'profess'.
[i]As mentioned above, I believe that all life forms have evolved this morality...[i]
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.
All of them were following my moral code in general. Though some of thier actions were due to purely selfish reasons which I have mentioned in this thread and in some cases I am sure they felt guilt.
Let us take Hitler for example. He did not act alone. A very large proportion of the German population suported him. This is a case of helping yourself and your society at the expense of those you percieve to be outside your society. Hitler and his suporters saw Jews as a threat to thier society.
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see you have resorted to resorting to misinterpretation because you have no real arguement to present.
I see you have resorted to resorting to misinterpretation because you have no real arguement to present.
I clearly said statistical not statistics. To make it even clearer I will say statistical in nature. That is, to understand natural selection you must have an understanding of statistics and probability. The word 'tend' appears twice in your definiti ...[text shortened]... be outside your society. Hitler and his suporters saw Jews as a threat to thier society.
Resorting to resort? No real argument?! Will you get over your vague, redundant and pseudo-grandiose claims that you keep spewing over this thread?
I clearly said statistical not statistics.
Six of the one, half dozen of the other. Give me one example of this "non-physical, statistical force".
To make it even clearer I will say statistical in nature. That is, to understand natural selection you must have an understanding of statistics and probability. The word 'tend' appears twice in your definition of natural selection, clearly indicating a statistical nature.
Please. Trying to recover from you crash and burn? You have nothing new to teach me on the subject.
Your thoughts are created by electrical and chemical reactions in your brain. Do you therefore say your thought are physical in nature?
Your question is riddled with assumptions. Science has yet to perform a complete reduction of the neural processes that result in thought. I'll reserve my comment till that stage thanks.
Why would it reduce my chance of survival? Even rats live in comunities and for good reason.
What is the motivation for your helping others?
All of them were following my moral code in general.
Oh yes; so your moral code includes blowing up buildings, killing innocent civilians, and gassing the weak and helpless when there is some perceived “utopian” objective that validates it. Pathetic.
This is a case of helping yourself and your society at the expense of those you percieve to be outside your society.
Why are you changing your tune? Now you'll only help others when there is something in it for you? Figures.
05 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWho's norm? Who's standard? What standard or norm? Notice how it refers to [b]a norm or standard, implying that there are more than one.[/b]
[b]Objective morality: A normative claim about right and wrong that would be universally applicable.
Normative: Of, relating to, or prescribing a norm or standard: normative grammar.
Who's norm? Who's standard? What standard or norm? Notice how it refers to a norm or standard, implying that there are more than one.
What are any genes that regulate the sense of "morality" or conscience as to any others.[/b]
Well that is the whole subject of debate here -- whether the norms are relative or absolute.
That [it's wrong to torture babies for fun] is simply one (or more than one) person's opinion.
Are your arguing that this is merely a preference claim? I don't see people going to prison for preferring vanilla ice-cream to Twinkies.
And are they all the same?
AFAIK they all have the same basic underlying principles.
There are biological similarities among people with respect to conscience and a sense of that vague idea "morality" - but these similarities aren't absolute. People, like all organisms, have genetic variation, and this applies just as much to any genes that regulate the sense of "morality" or conscience as to any others.
So morals should be decided by democratic consensus? Why have morals at all?
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseCan you give an example of human thought without electrical and chemical reactions in the brain?
[b]I see you have resorted to resorting to misinterpretation because you have no real arguement to present.
Resorting to resort? No real argument?! Will you get over your vague, redundant and pseudo-grandiose claims that you keep spewing over this thread?
I clearly said statistical not statistics.
Six of the one, half dozen of the ...[text shortened]... ing your tune? Now you'll only help others when there is something in it for you? Figures.[/b]
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYour origional statement implied that natural selection is 'physical forces acting on biological matter'. This is not the case.
Give me one example of this "non-physical, statistical force".
Oh yes; so your moral code includes blowing up buildings, killing innocent civilians, and gassing the weak and helpless when there is some perceived “utopian” objective that validates it. Pathetic.
What is pathetic is when people deliberately misinterpret a moral code for thier own ends, or people being very short sighted when it comes to trying to achieve thier "utopian" objectives.
Many americans including Bush consider torture to be morally acceptable if the objective is correct. They also consider mass murder of women and children to be morally acceptable as demonstrated in the iraq war.
Why are you changing your tune? Now you'll only help others when there is something in it for you? Figures.
I didnt change my tune. Evolution selects for those who only act when there is potentially something in it for them or thier close relatives.
I have never yet met a Christian who would give up his place in heaven for another.