Morality?

Alsharad.

Thanks for the considered reply.

Occam portrays the 'alien race' an it's moral code in the same setting as humanity. 'it' sees no enforcement of 'it's' code except by it;s own species.
Thus, quote you.
"It could be that there *is* objective truth in morality and that one of the cultures is simply mistaken."

Is only applicable if an absolute moral code exists
But is not enforced as an objective law such as the inverse law of gravity or the 2/thermodynamics.
If it is not so enforced as a LAW a 'moral law or absolute'
Then it is no such thing.
If laws are not enforced then where do they exist in reality beyond theminds of thinking beings.?

You say there may be an absolute morality.
Occam says, yes, they may be. But so far.. nothing observed.

Occam did not mean that presentient life is bound by moral law.
But that if natural process/evolution were 'transcribed into a morality'
Then 'survival of the fittest' might be it's moto.

You are quite correct.
One person can well do so..
A classic example is Dr Lecter


Also ..excision...ah yes...Had a blankout...
One of the foul practices and examples of human stupidity.

Exactly...
Now if we both believe a morality is truth.
If occam is a good man by all religious moral standards.
Then why will occam go to hell as he has been told he will by the monotheism
of christianity/islam/judeaism?
How do you resolve this...

You say there may be a moral absolute.. But none is seen...
And occam rejects many moral standards of the west and east.
So he, as a good example of his error before..
Sets his own moral code that he lives by.
It fits, roughly, with western standards. but with some reservations.

Now occam said to you
:"Then you must subscribe to occams morality."
He did what every church does a million times a day.

He said he was right , in a path through a dark forrest.

Your reply
"I do not have to ascribe to "occams morality" in order to substantiate my beliefs."

And this is exactly what occam says to human organised religion...
As the so called moral guide to humanity... It has served a function because it requires stability to exist.
And in building stability,, promotes itself..
Religious morality is pragmatic. It will murder to save itself over any individual.
Self serving.

You and occam may well have very similar moral codes.
But who or what really, decides the right and wrong...???
Some law enforced...?
Where?

My reasoning is that if we act as a race. IF we put aside our stupid petty sqabbles and start displaying rational thought at a racial level.
We can solve most of our problems in a mater of decades [3-7]

In a century..The earth could be a garden.
No powersations,mines, factories.....

A new eden...All we have to do...Is DO IT.

1.
Then by the standards of that culture they are right o wage war of take slaves or kill jews.
By the standards of another...That culture is thus called....?
Evil?

America helps england defeat NAZI germany in western europe...
[lets not talk about that butcher stalin]
Are they the good guys?
You and occam are the kids of the good guys...
Are we the good guys?

Who are the good guys....
By what law?
[if fact,, by what 'absolute' moral law]

2.
But moral codes 'are' reformed...by evolution.

The fab5 now cavort on world TV.
Two centuries back they would be dead by the hands of the church.

How did this happen..? [occam introduces 'rational morality']

3.
Are you serious?
You cannot say if a society that oppresses women is worse than one that
does not? Your logic is clean.
But what of 'rational morality'
Read below
Analogy: A society that oppresses HALF of itself is like A fool that walks about with a finger jammed in his eye. He can only see half of anything and he is in constant pain.
Man/woman are one...2sides to the same thing. To degrade women.
Is to degrade yourself....

Humanity ....woman/man heart/mind love/reason compassion/will

Not the logic you like ...but truth.
Morality can be viewed from a logical position...
Logic is a damn powerfull tool.

But would you easily throw a baby into a fire... To save the lives of 10 people.?
Logically yes.

But in the doing...Occam thinks you and he and all we know. Would suffer massive psychological trauma in such an act.

You might wish to call that some evidence of absolute moral code.
Occam calls it the thing that makes us human.

Occam

 

Which is the subject of our discussion. Note that I did not say that an objective moral code exists, I simply pointed out that it is possible that it exists. This (among other logical problems) renders the argument invalid.

Your argument:

If an objective moral law exists, then it will be observably enforced.
No moral law is observably enforced.
Therefore, there is no objective moral law.

The argument is valid, but, I believe, unsound. The reason being that I believe your first premise is untrue and does not correspond to reality. Moral laws would not be something like the law of gravity. They would not be natural laws. They would be more like logical and mathematical laws. We cannot observe logical laws, but we cannot claim that they do not exist. We cannot observe mathematical laws, but they exist. What is really important is that they exist outside our minds. A thing cannot bring itself into existence regardless of humanity even existing. Moral laws would be abstract in nature and thus not readily observable in the same sense that one can observe and measure gravity, thermodynamics, etc.

So Lecter didn't do anything morally reprehensible at all (in an objective sense). So long as he acts within his own moral code, he does nothing morally wrong. We cannot say that he did something wrong, only that it is our opinion that he did something wrong or that it would only be wrong if *we* did it. That is just non-sensical.

It isn't detestable at all. Our culture doesn't do it, theirs does. They are different, but we cannot levy judgement against what they do in their culture. All you can say (according to your own moral theory) is that it would be destable if it occurred in current western culture.

That is something for another thread. I will get to it on the God is dead thread.

If the moral codes the religion promotes are sound, then you should at least give them consideration. Rember that you must judge the moral codes and teachings apart from the people that promote them. People are fallible and I will say that the Christian church has had some very corrupt leaders. Do not dicount the moral codes simply because some people are hypocritical (that is commiting the fallacy of ad hominem).

That's quite a vision! Of course it would require changing the fundamental nature of humanity, but hey, I agree that it would be nice. Oh yeah, if there is no absolute moral code, then the world you describe is no better than a world of pollution, corruption and facist dictatorship. A world of torture and cruelty is no worse than a garden of eden... unless there is an objective moral code.

Your "good guys' question is a little to simplistic. You are proposing that Germany did nothing wrong with slaughtering Jews. A better question would be "was it morally correct to stop Germany?" I can say "yes, absolutely." You have to say "no" because your theory advances that nothing a culture does is morally correct or incorrect (it is all neutral). Your position is counter-intuitive and just doesn't seem right (or logical).

You are avoiding the question. Evolution is change. I do not say that moral standards within a society do not change. They do. However, the issue is that if the *only* standard for morality comes from the culture, then you will always know what is right by consulting your own culture. You cannot criticize your own culture because it is the standard. If you deviate from the cultural standards in anything, you are wrong and it is right. Note that above you said that occam "Sets his own moral code that he lives by. It fits, roughly, with western standards. but with some reservations." If you deviate at all (the rough part of fitting within the standards), then with regard to those areas of deviation, you are morally *wrong* and it is wrong of you to hold to standards that are not in accord with that of society.

You addressed the example, not the issue. How about slavery? Infanticide? Acceptance of homosexuality? Tolerance? Free speech? All of these are issues in which people suppose we have made moral progression. If the society sets the standard, all we can do is change, not progress. A society that has slaves is no worse than one without them. No free speech is no worse than free speech. You see the problem?

If I am a utilitarian. A Kantian would say "absolutely not, let the 10 people die. You are never to use a human (even a baby) as a means to an end."

Only if I believe that what I did was wrong. A hard-core utilitarian could do it and think little of it afterwards convinced that he took the morally responsible and correct course of action.

 

From J Lazarus:

I would definitely agree with you on this one.

Here we go... let's get to the good stuff!! I'll grant you the above definition. We are in agreement (for now at least).

I also agree here. Most people would not disagree that our actions eventually are self-centered. Just for clarification, you are not at all saying that people are conciously "selfish", but that, as a rule, we do what we think is in our best interests (like eat, sleep, play, etc.).

Okay so far.

This is definitely a theory that has some substance behind it. In fact, it reads like social contract theory. We all agree on a set of morals because having everyone follow those morals is beneficial to ourselves. The theory is very practical. It addresses less of "what should be" and more of "what really is".

But...

You said "Therefore, not only is it necessary that we follow these ourselves, but also that we respect others in a way that they too can pursue these needs." This works so long as everyone agrees, but what about creatures that cannot either implicitly or explicity agree to work together for everyone's mutual benefit.

For example, animals are not able to cognitively participate in this type of agreement. In fact, in nature, we see animals killing in persuit of their needs regardless of any possible reprocussion. Several mating rituals for animals would be akin to rape in human society. I point this out to illustrate that, while some species might have societies, animals in general do not have the ability to come to a mutually beneficial agreement with humanity. As such, they would be outside the bounds of this moral system. We would be under no moral obligation towards animals at all. Specifically, we would be under no moral obligation to not torture them. There would be nothing inherently wrong with nailing animals paws to boards in order to vivisect them (as they have done in the past).

Still, there are those who would be so radical as to say "hey, that's okay." So let me introduce a second example. There are humans who also lack the cognitive ability to participate in this moral arrangement. Some do not even realize when they do harm to others. This mental impairement prevents them from understanding the implications of their actions. So, much like animals, they fall outside the scope of a mutually beneficial agreement between individuals. Would you say that it is morally wrong to, for no reason, torture someone who is mentally impaired? Most of us would find it more reprehensible than torturing someone who is not mentally impaired.

In these two cases, would it be in our best interest to "respect others in a way that they too can pursue these needs" when they cannot return the respect in kind? Would treating these cases as being outside the moral standards negatively impact "our pursual of these needs ourselves"? I think this system of belief might be obligated to say "no."

Still very well put. I hope my responses were accurate in understanding your theory. If not, please correct me and we will go from there.

No kidding! Just look at the world that relativism promises...

 

Given

Logical and mathematical laws are interpretations of observed reality.
They are our way of talking about observed reality.
They exist as stuctures in human minds and books. Because humans exist.
Without humans..There are no human logical and mathematical laws.

Ah,, logic flies to the winds.. "Moral laws would be abstract in nature and thus not readily observable in the same sense that one can observe and measure gravity, thermodynamics, etc."

Pure speculation.

TO HIM
He does nothing morally wrong.
To occam he does.
Who is to say if he is 'insane' by our standards.
Or sane by his...?
The majority?

Look a lecter closley and you will see a complex moral code.
Lecter kills none on a whim.
All life taken is by a code.
his code.
A morality. [in fact,, perceptably, a racial one]

Occam agrees that the humans of these cultures can and will do as they please.
In his code of morals.
Rule one is that all humans have an inherent right to life, and freedom from
opression and physical coercion.

Occam agrees that as long as human social systems are many. That human moral codes will be diverse.
If women are excised in some countries.

Then occam can only say that if a woman so wishes to be butchered
So be it.
If she does not..But surrenders her basic human rights to those of a moral majority. Through fear and overwhelming social pressure.
Then occam has every reason to say excision is a foul and heinous act.

Luckily for the church. Occam was never circumcised.
Or he might think of revenge

Many are sound...
Most are acceptable...
But many are not...
And the church is so slow in the fast world.
It is vastly conservative.

New moral codes become real literally overnight...
If enough humans accept code variation on the media.
It becomes a standard.

Homosexuallity is now a norm.
Those who persecute homosexuals are 'criminals'
Rightly so
After all, how can an absolute morality take any side in a question of sexual preference between consenting beings?

Not at all. Humans could start it right this minute... All we need do is decide that 1.5 trillion US dollars spent annually is not spent on defence.
But on turning our earth into a natural garden.
Like so many.. you have litle faith in the power of our racial will.
In 1942
Einstien wrote a letter to FDR.
3 years latter. The first A Bomb was detonated.
A phenomenal feat by any standard.

If just 20% of humans were turned absolutely to a task..[and not just the .05% of the manhattan project]
Humanity , could do just about anything.

incorrect.
The proposition was that german morality as dictated by the national socialist
party on a surpine nation said that such killing was acceptable.
A morality imposed by terror on a nation.. is still a morality.
Correct, by thier standards.
Not by occams..

Here a morality became apparent as one that would harm ALL who did not adhere to it.
German power , was to be imposed on any it could.
Rampant expansionism..
To resist such is analogous to an immune system reaction to EBoli virus.

The world response to Japanese and german totalitarian expansionism is a pure example of rational morality applied.
ALL who would be free. Resisted.

No. Occam is not morally wrong in holding a particular moral stance.
The moral codes that do not agree with his are morally wrong.
By his standards...
But..As in all human thought.
There is grey area.

Very likely that you and occam hold much agreement on moral codes.
But still we will disagree on many points.
Most of western code agree on basic tenets...
But not so on peripheral standards.
Thus the code is dynamic.

It, society and humanity as a race....evolve.

How do you know we do not progress..

Occam believes that. Human beings as individuals experience FAR LESS
violence/bigotry/hate exct in there lives.
Than at any time in human history.

Can you imagine the reaction of the world media if a town and it's church in a western nation decided to burn a heritic?

There is more violence in the world as a total [to say 2000bc]
But there are 20 times more people,,

Morallity is evolving.. What is good, survives, because we like it. Because we make morality.

Let us put utilitarians aside for the moment. To occam they run by a preset moral code. Efficiency made moral.

Now the Kantian you mention..What would he say if the baby was replaced by a human who wished to sacrifice itself to save 10 others.
But cannot do it alone. The ten must help in its death.

How many do you know that could act so?
How many utilitarians?

Occam has not met one [consciously]
They no doubt exist. But die young.
Or if truly utilitarian. Never reveal themselves.

Occam

 

There are many mathematicians and logicians that would disagree with that. Take this for example:

2+2=4

What have you observed? I submit that you have just observed a mathematical relationship that does not exist in any empirical sense. Here is another:

Velocity is a derivative of acceleration.

You can say that velocity exists and that acceleration exists, but you must also say that the relationship between them exists. We describe the relationship as a derivative, but the relationship exists none-the-less. This relationship is abstract and non-empirical. It is mathematical in nature.

Here is another one.

An object cannot bring itself into existence. Why not? Is there some sort of natural law the forbids it? No. It is a logical impossiblity. The laws of logic exist outside of human minds. They are universal and would apply even if humanity does not observe anything at all.

How does logic fly to the wind in my statement. Here is the logic to my statement.

If moral laws exist, they are either empirical or non-empirical.
Moral laws exist.
Therefore, moral laws are either empirical or non-empirical.
Moral laws are not empirical.
Therefore, moral laws are non-empirical.

It is not speculation; it is the product of rational deduction. My statement is true. If moral laws exist, they would be non-empirical

How are you logically drawing the conclusion that morality is relative to the individual? If you cannot provide a valid argument, then you are throwing logic "to the wind" as it were.

But you are still coming back to the idea that because they are different that there is no absolute moral code. This does not follow logically. Saying it over again does not make it true.

While your code is admirable, you have given me no reason to adopt it. Suppose I chose a code that was in total opposition to your own, you cannot say that I am wrong, only that I have a different opinion. In fact, here is another logical argument showing that your posistion is inconsistent and therefore untrue.

Let's take the statement "Wearing metal is wrong." Now, if I agree, then I think wearing metal is wrong. However, if there is no absolute moral code, then anything that I say that supports that statement has one function: it expresses my opinion. "Wearing metal is detestable", "metal wearers are committing immoral acts by wearing metal", "wearing metal is heinous and wrong!" All these statements are simply expressing my opinion that wearing metal is wrong. If you disagree, you think that wearing metal is morally acceptable. Now look at the position that we are in logically. Our opinions are disagree, yes? Now, if someone asks me what your opinion is on the matter of wearing metal I say "he says it is moral, but that is just his opinion." So, I can state my opinion and I can state your opinion. You can do the same. However, I would be in agreement with my own opinion, and I would be in agreement that the opposite is your opinion. You would be in the same position. We would then be at an impasse. We can only discuss our opinions, not the actual subject matter. However, on any subject, I am in agreement with my opinions and I must agree with any statement regarding your opinion (because it is about your opinion, not the actual subject matter). So there is no disagreement.

Uh-oh. Our opinions disagree, but are also in agreement. That is contradictory. Therefore, the statement "wearing metal is wrong" must have some sort of absolute reference point because if we say it is opinion, it leads to a contradiction. Not only that, if every moral statement can be premised with the phrase "it is my opinion that x" the subject of the statement changes from 'x' to 'my opinion.' If all moral statements are simply opinion, then we cannot even discuss moral concepts in any meaningful sense. We cannot discuss actual murder or rape, we can only discuss our opinions. We would not be able to even discuss these things because I could only discuss my opinions and your could only discuss your opinions. You see what I am talking about? We would not even be discussing the same subject.

And that is bad? Last I checked, research takes time. So does thoughtful reflection. Both are hallmarks of critical thinking. And what is wrong with being conservative when being faced with new (possibly radical) ideas?

So what? It still doesn't follow that there is no moral code. The new standard might be wrong.

If there is an absolute moral code that prohibits homosexuality, then anyone who transgressed that code is wrong.

You didn't answer reply. Why is that better than a world run by a facist dictator, full of pollution, damaged beyond repair?

Again, if morality is fluid, why is that such a big deal? Why is it necessary that I even care about my own health?

According to my morality, there is a moral code that applies equally to all human beings whether they like it or not. Am I wrong?

Because if morality is fluid then one is no worse or better than another. If moral systems cannot get better then they cannot progress, they can only change. No system is better than any other.

But is that code in error? Does it not correspond to reality?

They'll say the same thing. No human should be used as a means to an end. The ten will die.

 

Alsharad


Will answer post tomorrow.It's 2am here and occam is stuffed...
Brain lockup... [propably a glitchy OS]

Occam

------------
There are no athiests in foxholes..
But quite a few agnostics

 

Thank you for considering my post.

Now, you mentioned animals as concerned with ethics. The objectivist theory does not grant animals "rights" because of their inability to cognitively participate, as you put it - but it does point to them as a moral responsibility (something you and I are in agreement with). You have outlined some reasons why you believe this cannot happen under this system. Let me address why keeping animals as a moral responsibility is ultimately necessary and beneficial:

1) Respecting nature in general (which would include the animal kingdom) is crucial to human well-being. Imagine the earth without trees (alot less oxygen) or good water (nothing to drink, in fact I think we're down to 3% water usage in the world, everything else is frozen, inaccessible, or polluted) or a lack of animals as a food resource. Heh - to use a stupid example, the "Lion King" portrays a bit of what I'm talking about. Under Scar's rule, no one respected the "circle of life" type thing they had going on - and because of this they had no food and no water. We must respect nature in general or else it will ultimately hurt our ability to survive and prosper (as we instinctively wish to do).

2) Some animals we can gain companionship with - such as dogs, cats, horses, bears, lions, wolves (yes, there are quite a few places that are licensed to take care of some of these animals, and the humans there gain a companionship with them). Because of this ability of friendship domesticated animals become of high value to human beings. It is not sensible, responsible, nor morally correct to mistreat something of high value to each human being. You hear sometimes someone saying to another that it was wrong of that person to insult his brother, father, or mother because of who they are - people of high value to us individually who we should not wish to hurt. Same applies to animals.

And that's another crude explanation from me on why animals should be included in an objective moral system.

Thanks much,

- J Lazarus

 

Anthropologically speaking, anything that furthers the prosperity of the tribe is moral by definition. Anything that detracts from that prosperity is immoral.

That definiton, subject to the subjective interpretation of what is "good" or "bad" for the percieved "tribe" holds today.

It is the justifacation for locking-up pot smokers, it's the justifacation for blowing-up buildings, and it's the justifacation for ALL forms of conservatism- something that runs deep in homo sapients.

 

And there are many who would agree.

occam quotes neither

Assumption

Occam says it because no objective moral code is observably enforced.
No LAW is enforced.
If a law/rule is not enforced.
Then it is no such thing.
[but words 'called' a law by those that wish it to be]

Thats called survival.
Another thread.

You talk of morality as if
IT SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE

Occam can think of nothing worse.
Imagine humans that could do no wrong
How would they know what wrong was?
Without choice. Good/bad become like walking off a cliff or not.
Without choice.
Good becomes survival, and bad becomes no survival.
You think absolute laws promote god?
They promote evolution.

Good and bad exist... because there is no absolute moral laws.
Good and bad then exist not as things in themselves.
But interpreted structures in human thought.

Morality is an etherial thing...

Those thing, like love, morality, compassion, beauty.exct...
Are what make us human...You want to turn them into laws.

They are all, of the mind.


Occam

 

J_Lazarus

My pleasure! It was a very interesting theory. I like thoughts with meat behind them.

Yes, we both agree that we should treat animals well. I think we disagree as to why.

I would agree that we should respect nature in general and that it would be detrimental to our continued existence. However, I do not think that this really answers the question. For example, it is to our benefit to herd beef cattle. It would be detrimental to wipe them out as a species, but with moderation, we can cull the herd to meet our needs for food. Now, if we are respecting nature generally, can we "disrespect" it in the specifics. Take the cattle for example. Now, we kill the cow, then carve up the carcass and eat it. We have made sure that it has already produced offspring so we have made sure that the "cycle of life" has been preserved. At this point, why do we kill it before we carve it up? Would there be anything morally wrong with carving it up while it was still alive? Instictively we recoil and think that would be a horrible thing to do, but if we have respected nature in general (by maintaining the ecosystem, etc.) then how would this be wrong? Why?

As another example, say we come across a wounded animal that is obviously dying and will not survive. Some people would say that it would be immoral to let it suffer and they would just kill it. Others would say that we should not kill and would do what they can to help the creature. VERY few would say that they would tease and torture the animal for fun since it doesn't do any real harm (the animal is going to die anyway). The thought of this type of behavior is morally offensive to most of us. In any of the three cases, however, nature "in general" would be respected, though not necessarily in this specific instance. How does your theory deal with such a situation?

This, I think, is a stronger line of reasoning than your first. And it fits more completely within the scope of your theory. However, I am not sure that it sufficiently deals with the issue. I agree that your theory supports the idea that it would be immoral to destroy things of value to another person. Where I think this line of argument fails is that it draws a conclusion that cannot be substantiated. There are *some* animals that can gain companionship with humans. I do not see how it follows then, that we should afford the protection afforded to domestic animals to all animals. We feel a certain kinship with mammals, but can we feel companionship for birds? Reptiles? Fish? Insects? Invertebrates? Is it wrong to torture a worm for no other reason that we gain a sense of pleasure from watching it squirm? Is it okay to pull the wings off of flies? Can these creatures have a sense of value for us in the same way that a "pet" can? If not (which I believe is the case) then this fails to address the problem of why torturing animals is wrong. If so, could you please explain how or give specific examples?

And they were very well thought out. I feel as though they were inadequate in addressing the issue though. Your first reason was too vague and your second really only addressed a very specific subset of animals (those capable of establishing "friendship"). In my opinion, your theory needs to be broad enough to address how we should treat other living creatures, but specific enough to address how we should treat *every* living creature.


-------------------
geckopelli

I am not at all in agreement. This ends up in a fluidic moral system where the majority in the "tribe" dictates what is moral and what is immoral. It just doesn't fit. See my arguments with Occam elsewhere in this thread to understand why.


-------------------
Razorofoccam

I don't know of a single logician that would say that logic is simply an invention of the human mind. The laws of logic are universal because they are always true no matter what. As such, they exist outside the human mind because they would exist even if there were no humans to formulate them.

No. Conclusion. If there is an assumption, it is that they exist at all. We can debate that. However, if they exist, then they are non-empirical by rational deduction.

You do not see it enforced in the same way you see "empirical" laws enforced. What does that prove? It is entirely possible that they are not enforced in that way YET. Another possibility (and more likely) is that empirical laws are empirically observable; non-empirical laws are obervable through non-empirical means (like reason and logic). What does not follow is that non-empirical laws would have empirical effects. This is what you expect. It simply does not follow. So, either you are being illogical or you have an argument which shows how a non-empirical principle or truth will have a direct and observable consequence.

But that doesn't answer the question. Why should I care about survival? Many people in the past haven't. Are they bound by any sort of moral code? If they do not care about surviving, why should they remain moral by cultural standards? Why not simply act as their whims dictate?

I am simply outlining the conclusions of your line of thinking. If no moral code is better than another, then we cannot go from worse to better. We cannot progress at all. In fact, we have not progressed morally since the dawn of time. This isn't MY line of reasoning... it is the logical conclusion of a fluid, non-absolute morality.

I did not follow any of that. How are you drawing your conclusions?

That is all very poetic. Unfortunately, poetic language, with its double meanings and emotional statements, generally hinder the logical process. Could you please explain your logic here? You agree that morality exists, but not that there are any rules or laws to it. That just doesn't follow. I would agree that a world without morals would be a pretty bad place. But how is that different from a world where everyone follows their *own* moral code?

 

But human logic IS a creation of the human mind.

It is the interface between what IS.
And our world. [of mind]

Yes.That which exists outside the human mind supports logic..
But human logic is not the thing.
Any more than the map is the terrian.
And yes reality , as occam proposed on another thread. Is truth.
Reality incorporates logic.Or so it appears to us.
So we use it to manipulate the stuff of really.
And that WORKS...
Radios. cars TV's planes . computers.

Great stuff.

Occam assumes nothing..Especially the existence of any moral laws.
You assume that objective moral laws exist.
By the position you hold in this converstaion.
Yet you call the existence of said laws an assumption.
"If there is an assumption, it is that they exist at all"

But if they exist, are they 'non-empirical by rational deduction?'

OK , moral laws are non-empirical by rational deduction...
Thus. Moral laws cannot be experienced by humans ...by rational deduction..

As they MUST be enforced on humans to BE human/existent laws.
Then where are they?

Or. do you call a law something 'called a law' but is never enforced...

Then the word 'law' is no law at all..
Gravity is the ONE.
An example for all to see..of what a law IS.
If morality was LAW.
Then what morality occam asks
Is enforced other than by humans.?

If christian morality was a LAW.
Then what would happen

OHHHOHHH. the jesuits got there first.

You ONLY are punnished AFTER you die...

Good point.
Occam replies by saying...
Kill youself now...
maybe you will take it as a 'whim'

If he does not hear from you.
Then you are dead..
And basking forever in the eternal monotony of gods radiance.

What crap.
'We have not progressed morally since the dawn of time?"

Occam has NEVER seen a human die before his eyes.

This is the norm.

3000 years back. A person who never saw another die by the evil intent of another. Was a rare thing.
Dont let your idea of reality be dictated by hollywood.
Life now is a dream compared to what people had to deal with.

We are only just OUT OF THE PIT [of ignorance]

occam

 

Your arguments fail to state an objective basis for a "moral code". Without survival as the main consideration "morality" becomes a moot point; the propounded view of an individual. Nopn-survival 99.9% of the time.

"Moral" is what perpetuates the carriers of the "moral code".

 

Gecko

Where have you been?

Slumming on some sunny rock?



Occam

 

I was accused of being theprophetoftheword and told too stay the hell out of this forum.

Never could follow rules!

That rock is lined with mink!

 

right and wrong does not EXIST. It is all in your head, in your programming, and brainwashing, and sometimes in extreme cases, genetics. Then there is that biological instinct to preserve the species, which covers a lot of determining for "right" and "wrong". I mean, things are what you make of them. You cant deem something right, because it just IS. you cant deem it wrong, it just IS. Think of it that way.

 

Yhea!

and other stuff to make this message long enough

 

lol in other words, you don't believe in God, but you actually agree in some way that you are subordinate to the almighty being.

 

How in the world to you misinterpret things so badly?
Where is the requirement for a god?
Is Evolution your God? Do you believe genetics is the Language of God?

 

By the way i see it, you can call that misinterpretation, illusory or whatever...

You see, when you say things are like that because they ARE programmed... that leaves only one meaning . Genetics may not be God's words in the type of christianity that you perceive as religion in your mind...

However, in some religions in the world.. this whole cosmos is God... in some religions also.. (you are totally aware of this)... we are like puppets and the real player is God.

So who programs us? evolution?- yes, who is programming evolution itself?-randomness?- agreed- who got the concept of randomness into the system?- God. Many scriptures in the world totally explain!- He is randomness!! He is programming!-He is evolution and He is even you!, he is everything

At the most higher level and the most lowest level my friend, He exists and He "IS" . So I found a little humor in it when the poster here said "it is genetics" , "it is in your programming" ... "it is like that because it just IS, there is no right or wrong" and you saying "Yea" (implying that there is no God).
it was a harmless laugh

 

Your assumpution of god as an enity is still unwarranted.

If by "GOD" you mean a description of the natural laws that govern existence than that's a different matter.

But if "GOD" means supernatural intelligent being, well, then, There's as much evidence for Santa Claus.

Randomness is the basis of existence. I am well prepared to argue that that basis tends to discredit the idea of a super intelligence with magical power.

You can't argue intelligent guidance and a crap shoot all at the same time. One way or the other.