Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Prettiness is a measure of physical beauty.
Not strictly speaking. Prettiness depends a lot of context. The clothing the person wears and their general attitude. You'll notice that certain actors/actresses seem, in some roles to be more and in other roles to be much less attractive, even though they have exactly the same body.
Prettiness is not a purely physical property and is not rigorously defined and is therefore not scientifically quantifiable.
Weight is a measure of physical mass.
Weight is rigorously defined and is therefore scientifically quantifiable.
You are making a category error.
You are conflating Quanta (quantitative, scientific) and Qualia (qualitative, experiential).
1 + 1 = 2, therefore I love you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
In other words no two people will agree on how moral [attractive] or immoral [unattractive] in all cases. Obective (ie viewer independent) morality can't exist.
Most people assume pain is a perfectly objective measure of physical damage.
This is not the case.
Pain is relative to your experience and your unique individual perception of relative danger and importance.
It might be the case that our "moral intuition" functions exactly like our sense of pain.
It seems immediate and undeniable and there is a lot of agreement between individuals as to what is painful (immoral), but each one is different in important ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
PRO’s argument is premised on the idea that God just has to exist as you just can’t explain how objective moral facts (facts that transcend the universe itself, are commands and are accounted for by free will) come into place otherwise[bald assertions, every single one]. CON’s rebuttal is that nope, there is an alternative explanation and that explanation boils down to this little thing called homeostasis that regulates right and wrong based on the harm that may be caused[as a hypothetical alternative]. And so this debate was a back-and-forth[mostly PRO attacking and never defending] in determining whether morality was a divine command or an evolutionary construct of the physical universe that in CON’s words has “helped evolve the human species to better hunt, more quickly construct shelter and increase the overall security of the self and the society.”
First, in regards to the arguments about God existence, I did not consider them to be a kritik[perfecto]. My impression of this debate (based on the description) was that PRO was trying to prove God’s existence [by assertion only] and so it thus would have been appropriate to address CON’s point that God could not have created the universe[then we'd end up with just another "does god exist" debate]. There was nothing in the description about God’s existence not being in dispute, so I don’t buy the notion that CON is arguing a K[agreed, just sort of beside the point]. That being said, I feel CON made the mistake of not really challenging PRO’s position that free will necessitated God’s existence[off-topic, bald assertion]. CON’s basic response was “yeah, free will exist, but so what?” So all in all, I’m going to chalk the “God’s existence” as [off-topic] and leave it at that.
That leaves us with figuring out whether PRO’s “Objective Moral Facts transcend the universe and are commands that product of an intelligent mind” [bald assertions] beats CON’s “Everything boils down to homeostasis”[hypothetical example] contention. And all in all, when I weigh things equally, I have to give the edge to CON’s case here. PRO’s paradoxes and ‘Homeostasis principles apply to all life’ points were [weak] rebuttals in their own right and CON, admirable effort aside, was never able to overcome them[or even point out that god does not automagically solve those same dilemmas]. On the rape point, CON says that physical trauma is still involved, hence why raping a comatose victim would be immoral, but as PRO showed, physical trauma itself can be readily enjoyable during [conscious] sex[which is a CHOICE, but not a choice a comatose individual is able to make for themself]. On the pollution point, CON says that the immediate gain from cars exceeds the long term detriment[in certain examples, like rushing to the hospital], but as PRO showed, the long term detriment, if believed, is truly destructive[PRO proves the homeostatic principle by using it as an example][there is no moral command from any hypothetical god that solves the same problem]. As such, I look at CON’s arguments, and what it sounds like to me is not iron-clad objective morality, but subjective determinations he is making on a case-by-case basis. Human opinions if you will[and PRO demonstrates less than nothing, not a single argument that explains how god solves our moral problems]. And that’s the real weakness with CON’s[and PRO's] case. The whole “is hurting fruit/vegetables immoral” stuff didn’t really go anywhere, but that too really makes me question [PRO's] [utter lack of examples] in a way that I don’t feel he could’ve overcome.
Even though I find [CON’s] case more persuasive than [PRO's], there were some substantial weaknesses CON somewhat alluded to that really made me question his case and had CON pushed a little further, I might’ve ended up making it a [win] on convincing arguments. Particularly the idea that objective moral facts necessarily have to be commands. I get that that’s the conclusion PRO wants, but it felt like a pretty big assumption based on the way PRO presented the argument[agreed]. Same goes for why objective moral facts are infinite[incoherent nonsense]. At times, it kind of felt like PRO was saying this is the case because PRO says so[actually, the entire debate was filled with PRO's bald assertions and zero examples to support their case]. CON didn’t push back nearly as much as he needed to and was more focused on making the case the everything can be boiled down to homestasis principles[not comprehensive or convincing alone]. Granted, given that the BOP was equal, maybe that was his intention[PRO never even attempts to meet BOP].
Anyways, good job to both debaters, but I'm voting [for a tie]!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
PRO R4: (1) Free will exists and CON has failed to provide any framework that accounts for free will without God[moot, off-topic, quantum physics is the standard answer]. (2) CON’ case is crushed by moral paradoxes[that are not solved in any way by adding a god to the mix]. In the pollution example, the long term harm outweighs the short term benefits (which CON concedes)[PRO just argued in FAVOR of the homeostatic principle]. In the rape example, one has to conclude that raping a comatose person is perfectly moral in CON’s worldview [putting words in CON's mouth, strawman] since cels do not care if you are finding pleasure in an act that causes physical trauma (i.e. people enjoying trauma involved BDSM practices)[categorically leaps from the good of the planet to the good of individual cells with zero justification]. (3) CON’s philosophy applies to all life, so eating vegetables or fruits can be immoral[except that fruit specifically is only able to perform its function of spreading seeds if it is eaten]. A moral framework must allow for some exploitation of the environment[no examples of how a god fixes this], but CON’s case permits no such thing[overstatement, leap to conclusion, appeal to ignorance]. (4) Objective moral facts must transcend human boundaries and necessarily the homeostasis of the cells[bald assertion, rampant speculation]; they must come from a transcendent mind and that mind is called God[bald assertion, zero examples].
CON R4: (1) Morality can be objective through homestatic principles [for example] and does not need God’s existence to work[bald assertion, weak argument]. (2) PRO’s failure to refute that the universe wasn’t created negates the resolution since God was agreed to be the creator of the universe and since this creator is what must exist for morality to be objective[appeal to ignorance, burden of proof fallacy, off-topic]. Pro has dropped this point and has therefore conceded[CON cannot speak for PRO]. (3) PRO failed to provide an example of a single moral action that could not be reduced to homeostasis (hahaha)[appeal to ignorance, PRO did not provide a single example of how a god automagically solves any moral dilemma]. 4) Driving cars and polluting the air isn’t an action towards someone else, but more of a cumaltive product of multiple varying behaviors not directed at anyone really, thus is not an issue of morality[weak argument against "the greater good"].
This was a fascinating debate and [poorly] reasoned by both sides. I didn’t [mind] the format, but that tends to be the case for most of the debates I see on this site. What I’d like to see debaters do is just follow a consistent 1,2,3,4/A,B,C,D format every round as that makes it a lot easier to follow arguments[agreed]. This debate wasn’t too shabby though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
PRO R2: CON’s conclusion is fault since (1)It is full of moral paradoxes such whether it is wrong to rape a comatose person, whether driving is immoral as well making determinations such as whose homeostasis is more important[raising the bar fallacy, adding a hypothetical god does not automagically solve either of these problems, therefore PRO has no counter-argument]; (2)Con’s framework applies to all life and thus applies to animals and vegetables as well[as would be required for it to qualify as objective, this is a confirmation and not an objection].
CON R2: (1) In regards to PRO’s case, objective moral facts are based on our assessments of the homeostasis of those towards who we behave and there was no creator of the universe that was not created[that we know of, overstatement]. (2) Moral-facts transcend everything but space-time and are contingent on physical facts[phenomenal reality, like gravity]. (3) Morality is not a command, but rather an organism need[not a command]. (4) None of PRO’s paradoxes apply to morality via homeostasis. A comatose patient being raped would still be experiencing physical trauma, thus would still be an immoral act[seems obvious]. Driving is not immoral because of the homeostasis it helps to maintain and because it is not a behavior [directly] towards others. Jack is not being harmed in PRO’s third paradox[obvious]. (3) Homeostasis does not stop with humans and other animals[objective]. (4) To conclude, the universe wasn’t created, so there is not creator of the universe[bald assertion, overstatement]. And objective moral facts exist by considering homeostasis, not the NAP. And all actions PRO would consider to be moral can be reduced to the homestatis principle[overstatement, appeal to ignorance].
PRO R3: (1) CON’s arguments against God are a Kritik and should thus be ignored[false, the debate resolution does not presume god, it is a question, "can morality be objective without god", if god is presupposed, the question has a foregone conclusion and would be considered rhetorical]. (2) Objective moral facts are indeed infinite because even if the physical universe were to disappear, these facts would still be true no different than 2 + 2 = 4[mathematics is an axiomatic system created by humans and does not transcend human existence]. (3) Objective Moral Facts are commands since “do not kill” and “do not torture babies for fun”[which god said this??] certain directs authoritatively and thus must come from an intelligent mind[bald assertion, fabricated, ad-hoc definition]. Homeostasis cannot make such commands[why would it need to?]. Evolution and homeostasis are only concerned with the survival of the fittest whereas morality is concerned with the community[morality has feelings? this is absurd]. (4) CON drops the free will argument[this is false, PRO cannot speak for CON]. (5) All of PRO’s paradoxes apply to morality via homestasis[bald assertion, provably false]. By CON’s logic, any form of sexual intercourse involves physical trauma and thus all sexual intercourse would be immoral by CON’s logic[obvious strawman]; there is no physical harm in the comatose rape victim example[also false], therefore no physical trauma[false]. By CON’s logic, driving and pollution are immoral since driving cars and pollution hurt the environment[CON already pointed out, not directed harm]. (6) PRO drops his own “who’s harm” subpoint.
CON R3: (1) Free will exist, but the existence of free will is irrelevant to the debate since one can independently conclude the existence of free will without concluding that God exist[poorly phrased true statement]. (2) Challenging God’s existence is not a kritik since CON is merely challenging the God defined in this debate[true, weak argument]. (3) Objective moral facts are not infinite since nothing about the term objective, being independent of human opinion, elicits the concept of infinity[utterly incidental to resolution]. (4) Objective moral facts are not commands since homeostasis is a standard as opposed to being an authority[all facts are facts and not commands, poorly phrased]; it exist in opposition to suffering and maltreatment[opposition seems to suppose motive and identity, poorly phrased]. This standard would involve the refusal to kill or torture babies[might include perhaps, but animals eat their young, so maybe not the best example here]. And from an evolutionary standpoint, social mammals with a functioning, homestatis society helped evolve the human species to better hunt, more quickly construct shelter and increase the overall security of the self and the society[ok, seems a bit off-topic]. (5) PRO’s paradoxes are unpersuasive[obviously, but the real problem is that god does not automagically solve them]. In regards to raping a comatose person, the enjoyment from sex outweights the minor sexual trauma received whereas no such enjoyment exist in PRO’s comatose rape victim example[seems a bit ad-hoc, poor example]. In regards to the pollution from cars, the danger from carbon emissions is in no way more immediately detrimental to homeostasis than being unable to rush a person to the hospital in a gassed up ambulance or removing the gas powered generators from homes in freezing temperatures[also poor examples, PRO is actually making a "greater good" homeostasis argument when citing air pollution, the real question would be, "how does god solve air pollution?"]. (6) CON then asks Pro if he can name a moral action that is not reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom the action is being done [appeal to ignorance, weak argument] as well as why [a] God would be needed to determine someone’s homeostasis[great question]?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
Shamelessly plagiarized [with modifications] from Logical-Master
-Both debaters have stipulated that objective moral facts exist.
PRO R1: (1) Objective moral facts transcend time, culture, place religious traditions, etc; these facts are always true regardless of the state of the universe [bald assertion, no examples, yet uncontested by CON]. (2) Objective moral facts are commands and commands [bald assertion, facts are not commands] must originate from an intelligent and competent mind [bald assertion, gravity is not a command and does not require a commander]. (3) Free will exist and objective moral facts cannot be accounted for without it [bald assertion, gravity does not require free will, why would any other objective fact require free will]. (4)Therefore, God must exist [non-sequitur, does not follow from premises].
CON R1: PRO is wrong because morality can be objective without necessitating the conclusion that God exist [just like gravity]. (1) Morality can be reduced to principles concerning the distinction between beneficial and detrimental actions with respect to humans and some extent to animals’ homeostasis (an organism’s maintenance of internal balance when dealing with external changes)[I believe this is just one possible example to show viability of concept]. (2) Morality is objective as long as its determination is independent of human opinion[applies to other animals or systems]. (3) Morality is determined based on facts about the homeostasis of others towards whom they are acting[subjective]. 4) Therefore, morality does not come from God, but rather homeostasis[reckless overstatement]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
All you'd need is one moral statement that is factually true in order to affirm moral realism.
False.
You have merely confirmed consensus.
Affirming an intuition, like, "castor oil tastes bad to everybody", is perfectly pointless.
In order for your "objective morality" to be of any practical use whatsoever, it must be able to adjudicate divergent moral intuitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Consensus morality has no effect on whether moral statements are factually true or true only by opinion.
Wait, consensus has nothing to do with facts?
If the consensus is aggregate and universal, this is actually a strong indicator of moral facts.
Now, suddenly, consensus is a strong indicator of facts?
Since when?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
A proposition is either true or not true. "Unicorns exist" is either true or not true.
Ok, but without seeing a unicorn (objective morality), can we say they definitely DON'T exist?
If there is no detectable standard, it doesn't seem to be conclusive.
Without a verifiable, empirical standard, you can't say a unicorn (objective morality) definitely DOES exist.
Moral realism is the view that some moral statements (like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong") are factually true.
"Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is only axiomatically true. Many people believe (with their moral intuition) it is better to "err on the side of caution" and would rather lock-up all people who appear to be dangerous, regardless of their guilt or innocence (internment camps are just one of many examples).
We can determine the morality of behaviors rationally. We don't need to reference a tangible, empirical object.
You keep appealing to "moral intuition" and then turn right around and say "morality is rational". Which is it?
Intuition provides us with prima facie evidence. Raping infants seems truly evil, so unless and until you have evidence to show that our intuition is providing us with false information, we should accept the way it seems.
Atrocious atrocities are atrocious. We all agree.
This merely proves consensus. Nobody is asking for evidence of consensus.
We are asking for logically coherent principles that allow us to clearly adjudicate scenarios that are outside of our consensus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
We needn't know why something seems wrong before it seems wrong
Nobody ever suggested such a thing.
What we need to know are the coherent logical principles we can base our laws (codified morality) on.
Should a copyright expire after 59 years, as originally intended, or can it be renewed indefinitely(?).
Your moral intuition on such matters may be somewhat different than mine.
We agree on many things, that is not in dispute, but that alone merely proves consensus, it is the points that we disagree on that must be explicitly principled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
A secret or unknown standard is functionally identical to no standard at all.The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
No kidding, we have basic intuitions about our immediate family, just like dogs."Morality is not just something that people learn..."
If morality was as simple as "be nice" then we would never have any disagreements.
HOwever, it is obviously more complicated than that.
The differences in moral (social/cultural) norms across time and geography are examples of learned behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true by law of excluded middle.
What you are saying is,"moral realism" is either true or false. Please provide a logically coherent definition of "moral realism".
Do you believe in "love realism" and "beauty realism" as well? What about "unicorn realism" and "big foot realism"?
Have you met Plato?
Either unicorn realism or unicorn non-realism is true by the law of excluded middle.
How do we know which one is true????????????
"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion. You can have consensus on facts and that's why there's often consensus in the first place.
Sure, but without an explicit, empirically verifiable standard, how do you know if we are more moral than our ancestors?
How do we know if we are more moral than our friends in Papua New Guinea?
Your personal overwhelming confidence in your own moral intuition is meaningless.
If "everyone followed the rules" we'd still be writing in ancient Latin. Languages evolve over time, just like morality. Proper grammar today is not the same as proper grammar a thousand years ago. It is based on consensus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Ah, so you do mean "a set of arbitrary rules that a large majority of people agree to abide by".
Not necessarily "arbitrary", our "moral instincts" probably serve some evolutionary purpose, specifically allowing large numbers of humans to co-exist and cooperate. Morality is primarily social.
That seems to imply that if there were no formal laws (on an isolated uncharted desert island say) I could kill you in cold blood but it wouldn't be immoral.
If you thought it was worth the risk (of attempting and failing to kill) and you thought you would be better off, and you could live with any personal guilt or regret you might or might not feel afterwords, and there were no other people you would have to explain this to, then, take your best shot (a la Walking Dead). If you believe my survival diminishes your chances of survival, then I am automatically an "enemy combatant" and must be dealt with at such.
Re exists and real, I would say the way they are used is such that 'X exists' and 'X is real' convey exactly the same intuitive concept, but that concept cannot be defined (other than circularly).
Morality is "real", well, at least as "real" as "love" or any other purely qualitative concept.
In order for it to cross-the-line into the quantifiable (scientific), it must be explicitly defined to correlate with empirical data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Consensus is the basis of the modern legal code.
Laws (codified morality) apply strictly to territories.
What is legal (morally acceptable behavior) in Nevada may or may not be legal (morally acceptable behavior) in New York or Paris or Riyadh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true [false choice/false tautology] so all we need to do is determine which position is more rational than the other [if you say so]. Moral realism is the view that moral statements can be factually true and moral non-realism is the view that they cannot be [these are not the only two options, you neglect to mention consensus morality]. If moral non-realism were true, then none of these statements could be factually true:
(1) moral progress [is] possible with consensus morality.
(2) there can be a moral highground with consensus morality.
(3) people's moral judgments can be incorrect with consensus morality.
(4) in the case of two competing moral views on something, one person can be more right than the other with consensus morality.
(5) compassion is moral and cruelty is immoral with consensus morality.
(5) fairness is moral and unfairness is immoral with consensus morality.
(6) killing another person without sufficient justification is morally wrong with consensus morality.
(7) punishing an innocent person is morally wrong with consensus morality.
(8) raping an infant is morally wrong with consensus morality.
(9) moral discussions are not a 0 sum exercise with consensus morality.
(10) cowardice is of bad moral character and courage is of good moral character with consensus morality.
Based on aggregate trends [in other words, CONSENSUS] in human behavior, throughout human history, none of these statements are indicated to be opinion-based truths [although they are not uniform or universal and many cultures for thousands of years and many even today commit what we would consider atrocities and yet they believe it is "the justice of the gods"]. No justice system on earth, for instance, adheres to the principle punishing innocent people is morally good [except for those that deport children to war zones]. Yet, moral non-realists [an absurd term] would have you believe that this absurd conclusion [of your own fabrication], if it were accepted as true by someone, is just as rationally warranted as the opposite - that punishing innocent people is morally wrong [not according to our current consensus].
So in short, the weight of the evidence (rationally, empirically, and prima facie intuition) strongly favors moral realism [given your ridiculous parameters and false choice]. In addition, moral realism is the prevailing view amongst academia and the public [CITATION NEEDED] so in order to override the status quo, you must prevent a strong case to overcome that as well as all of the evidence in favor of realism. Until then, realism is the more rational position [in your personal opinion].
Everyone believes in consensus morality. Everyone has always believed in consensus morality. From primal tribes to Roman cities to modern day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
The body maintains homeostasis whether you value contentment or not.Your body values contentment.
Only if you are able to maintain normal serotonin levels.
Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.Not really.Both of those types of people, whether they strive for materialistic products or not, are inherently trying to survive on the cellular level and this is universal.
So are you suggesting a moral principle or merely a biological principle?
And if you are suggesting a moral principle, please explain how it applies to those who have very little and those who have more than enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
The homeostasis principle is a nice general outline, but it is by no means comprehensive.Why not?
Already explained.
Yeah sort of.Any way, I think we all strive for homeostasis, no?
Only those who value contentment strive to maintain it.
Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
The homeostasis principle is a nice general outline, but it is by no means comprehensive.See the debate in the OP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Again, you have to understand that morality is about the others we behave toward. If our actions destroy the others toward whom we behave, then it's behavior detrimental to morality itself.
Often people who experience trauma are driven to great accomplishment.
How many doctors and CEOs grew up with emotionally distant, overly-critical parents?
Who knows what long term effects our actions may produce?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please present your (comprehensive, objective, logically coherent) moral PRINCIPLE.It's a principle. We needn't get into the specifics of what constitutes an offense in order for it to be factually true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Innocent of what? By what standard? What if punnishing an innocent person has the ney effect of discouraging immoral behavior? Do we then measure it by the immorality of punishing the innocent or by the measure of the moral good derived from preventing future immorality?And really none of that matters unless we know whether the thing the inoccentbperson is accused of is even an immoral act.Now please present your non subjective standard unless this has just been one long non sequitur.
Some people might consider deporting an unaccompanied refugee child back to a war zone, "punishing an innocent".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Having nothing tangible to compare something to does not mean that the truth of the matter is subjective.
Having nothing tangible to compare something to does mean that the truth of the matter is (functionally indistinguishable from) subjective.
You are trying to make an appeal to ignorance.
You are trying to claim 100% benefit of the doubt for your argument only.
You are basically saying "you can't prove it's NOT objective".
And at the same time you imagine the exact same argument does not EQUALLY apply to the opposition.
For example, "you can't prove it's NOT subjective" stands just as strongly (if not more strongly) as your preferred version.
The key problem here is that the very definition of "objective" includes "indisputable", "not subject to opinion", and "identical to all possible observers".
If you claim objectivity and that objectivity is disputed, your only option is to demonize and discredit your opponents with ad hominem attacks.
Demonization - Characterization of individuals or groups as irredeemably and purely evil, disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. A "black and white" "my way or the highway" point of view that casts all possible human participants as either "the good guys" or "the bad guys".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are they? If I think violent video games are harmful to a young person's psychy and you disagree how do we go about determining which of us is correct if indeed either of us is?
With SCIENCE!!!! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPRsT-lmw8
Serum serotonin level was a significant predictor of callous-unemotional traits; levels were significantly lower in boys with high callous-unemotional traits than in boys with low callous-unemotional traits.[LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Please present your comprehensive logically coherent moral framework.towards whom I use morality, is not arbitrary, in fact, necessary.
Everyone agrees generally that we should be nice.
But that doesn't make everyone a spineless pacifist.
You need to fill in every possible detail explicitly (zero exceptions and or loopholes) in order for your moral standard to be considered objective (like gravity).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Physical well being is objectively measurable mental well being less so.
With proper equipment, mental well-being is scientifically quantifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Define your terms and present a logical statement.I'm actually more interested in moral realism versus moral non-realism. The only thing that matters is which one is more rational to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The fact that nobody is disputing this statement only proves consensus, not objectivity.Inflicting a penalty on a person who committed no offense is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So now you're talking about legal terms?Innocent means not having committed the offense. Guilty means having committed the offense.
What happened to morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you brutally kill a puppy in front of an 8 year old I have no question they would be morally outraged or mortified at your behavior. An 8 year old doesnt need to first go through an academic exercise where they build their moral foundation. It's intuitive. Why can't we know of facts using our intuition?
If you very humanely kill a chicken, a cow, a pig, or a goat in front of an 8 year old, you will get the same reaction (moral outrage), unless that 8 year old grew up on a farm.
You only get moral outrage if that child has never seen animals (properly and humanely) slaughtered before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
100% true.Then it falls to fallaneze to present his case for an objective moral standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Atrocious atrocities are atrocious.Hypothetical question.
Consensus atrocities do not equal "objective morality".
Without a comprehensive (logically coherent) framework, you are merely arguing for CONSENSUS MORALITY (which nobody is disputing).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Moral intuition.You still have not told me what non subjective standard we are using to make judgements like innocent or guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes we do. Without an explicit moral framework, your moral intuition (gut instinct) is little more than an opinion.We don't need to build a moral framework...
Some moral intuitions are widely accepted (but rarely universal) and others are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
By this reasoning, anything we imagine is hyper-dimensional, automatically exists?!?!
I didn't realize that Christianity is contingent on the many worlds hypothesis and imaginary realism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So, no god (book of holy laws) needed?We can rationally identify moral behavior...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
1. It is possible that a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists, then a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists in the actual world, then a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally-great-super-hyper-dimensional-chair exists.
Where the heck is this awesome chair?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What keeps a human from being "maximally great"?
I mean, isn't a human the "greatest" being we've ever seen?
It also seems like "being" needs to be more clearly (explicitly) defined as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
1. It is possible [not necessary] that a maximally great [please define "great"] being exists.2. If it is possible [not necessary] that a maximally great [please define "great"] being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world [but not necessarily].3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world [non-sequitur].4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world [bald assertion].5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists [redundant assertion].6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists [conclusion does not follow from premises].
1. It is possible that a human is a "maximally great being" (TRUE pending definition of "great").
2. If it is possible that a human exists, then a human exists in some possible world (OBVIOUS).
3. If a human exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world (FALSE).
4. If a human exists in every possible world (FALSE), then it exists in the actual world (TRUE regardless of BAD LOGIC).
5. If a human exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists (REDUNDANT).
6 Therefore, a human being exists (OBVIOUS).
Is a cow or an elephant or a whale or a dinosaur or a sequoia more "maximally great" than a human?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
An entire bureaucracy comprised of pure alphas would probably work perfectly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
DPRoberts has it right.If a thing exists, nothing inherent in that thing is true or false. A statement about a thing can be true or false. Perceptions, thoughts, assumptions, etc. can be true or false.I would say truth is a human concept that defines or clarifies reality.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Moral non-realism is rationally justified when it does a better job of explaining the evidence than moral realism does. The evidence is our starting point.
How does your "god hypothesis" solve your proposed dilemma? It seems like an obvious non-sequitur to me.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Your [hypothetical] moral framework is based on seretonin/dopamine levels, not widely agreed upon or self-evident premises [in my opinion]. Under your [hypothetical] moral framework, which you seem to have abandoned[?] [in my personal opinion], murder is *morally* wrong based solely on the levels of seretonin and dopamine levels in the brain [of the attacker]. Let's abandon this moral framework altogether, shall we? [in favor of what exactly?] It's so preposterous [in my personal opinion, which is apparently based on nothing] at this point.
Below average serotonin levels are very consistently associated with anti-social and specifically with criminal behavior.
Addiction to abnormal behaviors and substances associated with dopamine dysfunction are also strongly associated with anti-social and specifically with criminal behavior.
I see no reason to completely abandon such a hypothesis at this point (pending possible refinement), especially since there does not appear to be a more reliable alternative.
How does your "god hypothesis" solve your proposed dilemma? It seems like an obvious non-sequitur to me.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Killing Hitler?
This would presumably qualify as a justified/justifiable (human) killing.
Murder is defined as an unjustified/unjustifiable (human) killing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Functional single nucleotide polymorphisms from the serotonin 1b receptor gene (HTR1B) and 2a receptor gene (HTR2A) were found to be associated with callous-unemotional traits. Serum serotonin level was a significant predictor of callous-unemotional traits; levels were significantly lower in boys with high callous-unemotional traits than in boys with low callous-unemotional traits.[LINK]
The connection between serotonin and criminal activity is quite clear. Criminals have been found to have a smaller frontal cortex and a smaller amygdala. The central amygdala is part of the section of the brain that releases corticosterone. Corticosterone activates the dorsal raphe, which increases serotonin (5-HT). The direct relationship between the amygdala and serotonin can be hindered when the amygdala is reduced in size, as seen in criminals. Criminals produce less serotonin or have serogentonic dysfunction. An abundance of serotonin can also have negative affects on people causing confusion and induced criminal tendencies. On the other hand, non-criminals have a balanced level of serotonin.
Over time, recurring exposure to high levels of dopamine changes the way the brain produces and processes this essential chemical. Eventually, dopamine-related alterations can lead to the appearance of physical dependence, a state characterized by a reliance on the continued intake of drugs or alcohol in order to function “normally.” In turn, physical dependence forms the necessary conditions for the appearance of substance addiction, which typically creates additional problems, such as recurring cravings for substance use, loss of voluntary control over substance consumption, prioritization of substance-related activities in everyday life and the development of withdrawal symptoms if the baseline requirements of substance intake go unfulfilled.
After completing their experiments, the researchers concluded that, during withdrawal, the brain sharply increases its production of BDNF inside the pleasure center. They also concluded that heightened levels of this protein lead to a somewhat lasting decline in the pleasure center’s dopamine levels. Together, these facts indicate that the release of BDNF is directly related to the brain’s attempts to counteract the oxidative stress caused by the presence of excessive dopamine. The researchers concluded that, unfortunately, the brain releases enough BDNF to produce an overcorrection that intensifies withdrawal symptoms and makes it more likely that a substance user will feel the need to consume more drugs or alcohol in order to offset those symptoms. In turn, this increase in consumption further supports the ongoing brain changes that lead to the establishment of an addiction.[LINK]
That said,
My hypothesis suggests that an Amish morality/lifestyle/culture is pretty close to an instinctive human ideal.
Dopamine spikes anywhere even close to normal "sex" (between loving partners) should be reserved exclusively for normal "sex" (between loving partners). This is a typical stipulation common among moral systems.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Axioms are different than definitions. An axiom is something that is widely accepted or self-evidently true.
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true (even hypothetically), to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments (for example in syllogistic logic).
A definition describes the meaning of something. I think you meant to say that stealing, murder, and molestation are wrong by definition. There's a difference between "legally wrong" and "morally wrong." I dont see anywhere where any of these terms are morally wrong by defintion.
Please explain to me when "murder" is NOT "morally wrong"? I'm not even sure what your hair-splitting is attempting to highlight.
And as far as molesting infants, please explain which god (specific holy law) protects them better than pure human instinct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Well stated.Your god is unknowable which puts it in the same category as spiritual intergalactic travelers. Both are irrelevant to humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
But you made the claim that the molester would not experience increased seretonin levels as a result of the molestation, a claim that requires evidence in order to be accepted as true.
Look at the list of behaviors that contribute to serotonin production. None of these are compatible with molestation.
Serotonin does not cause sexual climax or a thrill or a rush. Dopamine does.
There's also a huge amount of subjectivity in determining "excessive" levels of these chemicals.
This is not true. Dopamine levels that lead to addiction cause brain damage. This is not a matter of opinion.
For me, when your moral theory entails that climaxing on babies isn't morally wrong, that's enough for me to pass on it.
Straw-man. Nobody ever suggested such a thing. You have fabricated this horrifying example from your own imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm pretty sure nobody is arguing in support of nihilism.If nihilism is true, all of the following statements must also be factually true:
Empirical, consensus morality is what we are trying to nail down.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Stealing" is axiomatically "wrong" in the exact same way that "murder" is axiomatically "wrong" and "molestation" is axiomatically wrong.
Taking something from another person is not always "stealing".
Killing another human being is not always "murder".
Touching another person is not always "molestation".
Created: