3RU7AL

You like what you see?

When you focus on the conclusion then you aren't actually addressing the arguments at all.

No.. the study said that we have subconscious processes which decide what we do before we do, which is true, and that we have biases in certain instances, some negative and other positive.

None of this says anything about emotion,

We aren't using logic on an unconscious level are we? That is a conscious process. The one study cited supports this, because it mentions whe people receive damage to the emotional part of their brain, they become incapable of decision making.

well yeah, my point is that human actions aren't exclusively motivated by emotion, or at the least that would be oversimplifying it.

Yes, emotions are nothing more than chemicals with properties which affect your body. So yes, it actually is logical.

This means that LIVING humans caring about [some proximate subset of] each other rather than disregarding other humans [wholesale] and their wellbeing is a logical necessity more than a goal.

I agree you don't choose your wants, I do have a soft determinism in me, but those wants can be logical in nature. 

Tttmttfwtinkm was once responsible for making lighting. Now we have another explanation.

Agreed on both fronts. However, imperfections in the tests aside, I do think there's some value to taking them, if only to get a vague picture that lacks nuance.

Achievements versus how achievements are accomplished

Ends versus Means.

Blaming the wrong people is probably worse than blaming nobody, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed. I fail to understand how this is relevant.

Eventually right-wing 'gangs in charge' fall apart due to rivalries and backstabbings.

Agreed on both fronts. However, imperfections in the tests aside, I do think there's some value to taking them, if only to get a vague picture that lacks nuance.

of course it can be motivated by emotions, I see no reason why it needs to be motivated by emotions.

Well, here are two I definitely agree

Our nation's values should be spread as much as possible. - - RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY OTHER NATION ON PLANET EARTH.

It is very important to maintain law and order. - - hOWevER, UNJUST LAWS SHOULD NEVER BE ENFORCED.

I agree with more, but those are just some examples

and I agree with some of them.

You have a black vs white fallacy quite often too, especially with issues regarding privacy.

Yay.... I don't think I've ever seen such biased critique, and I agree with some of them.

each side has limited consideration of the arguments from the other side, and tends to apply similar logic to a broad spate of issues, even when doing so becomes less and less pragmatic.

I guess that all depends on what you look at as a more conservative opinion. I guess we could go through the list of questions given here as examples. Off the top of my head from this particular quiz, though, I do see a lot of benefit to private enterprise pursuing research that don't happen in the public sector. I think there are some instances where civil liberties should be curtailed to improve our security, though in some cases I believe we've gone too far in that direction. I'm usually quite supportive of pursuing new technology, but I think there should always be discussions regarding how it's used before rolling it out (and sometimes not roll it out, when the situation calls for it). I am actually pretty generally supportive of gun rights, though that's largely for pragmatic reasons regarding how people tend to respond to the issue of having their guns taken away. While I do think the immigration system has moved way too far in this direction, I do feel that it should remain somewhat restrictive, and don't support efforts to open borders substantially.

As for the claim, the whole humans are only motivated by emotion thing, as it was your central claim I don't get why that's hard for you to understand. 

Perhaps the enticement to do the logic was initially by emotion

and then died down, perhaps it wasn't there at all.

You can do something entirely motivated by logic

You have made a claim, I would like you to demonstrate it.

You see thats what we call a strawman, did you not read my original post, the key to mitigating bias is to realize you have one! That is literally the first step. Then you actively decide as if you did not have that bias, which, is quantifiable - we call it logic. 

What? That seems a tad too conspiratory for me, whenever somebody says objective in regards to being it, it is understood that they mean to mitigate biases or to make a decision in spite of it, it is simply easier and more succinct to say "objective", and because most people aren't this pedantic, they understand what the mods mean.

it clearly misses what some may consider minor points, which are still valid argument points.

Nearly as easily as one can fabricate an answer that one cannot be certain of. 

No one involved is a nihilist.

This may mean that we don't get any satisfactory answer. I understand that can be confusing and uncomfortable.  How it makes us feel doesn't change the facts though.

Even if why is important it is unattainable.

Let's say I don't know what compels us that doesn't mean I have to accept that some unfalsifiable proposition is the cause and I am absolutely justified in saying that an observable phenomenon like biology is more likely the cause than some unfalsifiable phenomena like morals/punishment/reward/meaning.

IF my experience is real

I suggested a possible definition that we could potentially agree upon for subjective morality

Nothing is both true and false.

I want to be very clear. You are not obligated to explain anything to me or to justify your beliefs but I am truly mystified that your axioms, such as you have chosen to share them with me, have any power to guide your decision making process or answer what is morally correct or incorrect even if anything actually is morally correct in the way you are describing.

Correction, for the sake of discussion I’m not claiming either (no matter how hard you try to force me into that corner) just acknowledging that only one is true.

I’m arguing that either objective morality or nihilism is correct question is which one is it?

I am not advocating for anything I can not prove exists I am just being told that I am using the wrong words.

I thought it was more than obvious I was selecting your option "(C)".

It wasn't a serious response, and you previously suggested that teaching our kids about the history of racism would serve to promote racism. Seems like a logical inference to me.

IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning exist THEN ???

IF  morality/punishment/reward/meaning don't exist THEN ???