Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:12:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 6:52:39 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Okay!
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:49:30 -0500, Ron DeanAccording to ToE we are nothing more than evolved animals, so can you >>>> condemn cannibals on their practice of killing and eating humans? No, >>>> you cannot! You have _NO_ moral grounds to do so!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:44:16 -0800 (PST), BurkhardIn history and perhaps even today, tribes of people who kill and eat >>>>>> other people. How do we apply our morality to people who practice >>>>>> cannibalism. Is this immoral; if so why? After all, we are nothing more
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:52:35?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 3:27:34?AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:So, you turn that around on me! That was _my_ complaint.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong? >>>>>>>>>>
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:IOW you cannot!
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so,You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is
using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit,
and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists
do.
another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if
only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,**************************************
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism.
all of atheism.
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.
You don't know that? That's really worrying!
If you understood why murder is morally wrong, you would not ask]the question,
or wonder why atheists and theist typically agree that (many forms of)
murder are wrong.
ISTM B.Rogers hit it on the nose elsethread:
***********************************
You seem to think that admitting we are animals means that there's no
reason to behave morally. That's nonsense. You seem to share with a >>>>>>> number of evangelicals I have known the idea that if we are not the >>>>>>> special creation of a personal God, the purpose for which the universe
was created, then life had no meaning and there's no morality. That's
your own failure of imagination, not a consequence of the theory of >>>>>>> evolution.
**********************************
than animals that evolved along with and from other animals. Do you >>>>>> think that people involved in cannibalism had any moral concerns, more
so than than animals.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=people+who+eat+people+facts&va=b&t=hr&ia=web
You keep asking the same question. I and others keep explaining to >>>>> you that evolution and morality have NOTHING to do with each other. As >>>>> far as I'm concerned, you might as well ask if its moral for the Sun >>>>> to shine. Seriously, what's your point?
So here's some questions for you:
1. How do you think ToE and morality are involved with each other? >>>>> Specifically, do you think people who eat other people do so because >>>>> they accept ToE? Can you consider the likelihood they do so for
reasons having nothing whatever to do with ToE?
According to the theory of gravity, we are just objects - proven e.g. >>> by the fact that no two of us can occupy the same space at the
same time, and that when thrown off a building we accelerate with
something around 9.8m/s2 (depending on latitude, longitude, altitude and >>> not accounting for drag). Just the same as rocks or cars
That's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between
rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate
human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a
moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far >> as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a
cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's
unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this >> is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as does
the ToE.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should be
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
The ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine". In fact,
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal species. The laws of physics do not.
things among themselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell youIf you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do not
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do.
Whether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not, invokes
no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or anyone else.
Rephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings asThat argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason.
animals (not lifeless matter).
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that your argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us an animals.
You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the laws of physics. There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came to
my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions.
It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were very special beings created by God in his image, the image of God, this was
the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by the God, who loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our behalf. I know
this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals nothing special, nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a remarkable contrast!
IF you were consistent,
you should attack people who accept the theory of gravity for atheist immorality
because they claim that humans too fall to the ground when thrown of a cliff, the same
way as rocks do. As far as the theory of physics is concerned, there is no difference between animate and lifeless matter, and by your twisted standards,
that should mean the theory of gravity implies that there is no such thing as morality
Here you are implying that all religions are the same. Paganism is aWhether they would or not, it has nothing to do with the issue I
2. Do you think swapping ToE with ID/Creationism would make people >>>>> more moral? Specifically, do you think people would stop eating other >>>>> people if they accepted ID/Creationism? Would it be enough for you if >>>>> they just felt really, really bad about doing it?
mentioned.
Of course it does. In most if not all cases where we have good evidence >>> for institutionalised cannibalism, we find a religious
justification. Similarly, in many cultures that reject cannibalism , this
has a religious justification.
religion, but vastly different from Judaism or the New Testament Christian.
No, where do I do this? I point out that whenever we find institutionalised
cannibalism, the reasons are theist in nature. That does not imply that all
theist religions demand cannibalism, and just a few sentences below I say that
explicitly, that some religions allow, some demand, and some prohibit cannibalism
But that means that "being religious" or "being a theist" does not in itself
mean a believer does not think cannibalism is moral .So by embracing theism,
you do exactly what you accuse atheism of doing - loosing the basis for
a general moral judgement.
That would cause me a great deal of anguish and stress.
Some religions prohibit cannibalism - including
forms that you in all likelihood find not only permissible, but morally desirable
yourself.
Some religions permit but don't demand cannibalism, for instance in situations
like the Andean aircraft crash, where eating some of the dead was necessary
for survival (excused based e.g. on 2 Kings 6:28-29.
So noted. And so what? That's just your personal dietary preference, why do you think it is relevant for a discussion of the moral right or worngs of cannibalism?
Here again, you're treating religions as being the same, this is a bias >> - to the extreme. Religions are not the same.
And some religions demand cannibalism. Some demand the eating of
members of the same culture, typically as a funeral ritual and with
explanations not too dissimilar we find in our society with regards to organ donation.
Where do I do this? That is just in your mind. I do point out that "being religious"
is irrelevant for the question if cannibalism is right or wrong, contrary to
your claim
If true, I would consider this as utterly morally corrupt!
Some demand the eating of one's enemies from other
cultures - the crusaders e.g. engaged in cannibalism of muslims as
a form of terror, and the religious justification essentially denied Muslims
full status as human beings (so in a way, it was not, from the perspective
of the Crusaders, "real" cannibalism.
Look up "siege of Ma'arra" during the 1. crusade. It is attested by several
contemporary Christian (and several Muslim) sources, e.g. by
Raymond of Aguilers
That's true, but this is specific to a specific denomination.
And of course some protestants always accused the catholic version of >>> Christianity to engage in cannibalism as a religious ceremony - so e.g. >>> Pastor Alexander Hislop in his "Two Babylons"
Furthermore, in reality this is figurative not real cannibalism.
And still it shows that theism or religion alone does not tell you anything about a) what counts as cannibalism and b) if it
is prohibited or allowed
This is an obvious description. Birds were _designed_ to fly, wings
So rejecting evolution and accepting a designer tells you precisely
nothing about the legitimacy of cannibalism - indeed, some gods are
cannibals themselves. The God Cronus famously ate his own children
It's just an attempt at escape. In fact since we are just
animals ToE tends to undermine morality. From an evolutionary basis >>>> there is _NO_ grounds for one animal killing and eating another
morality. It happens in the
natural world and we are animals in the natural world. If evolution is >>>> reality there's nothing special about us animals.
The ToE explains also the differences between animals, and what is special about
each species. Birds are the animals that evolved to fly - that birds and elephants
are both animals does not mean that elephants can fly,
hollow bones flow-through lungs etc elephants were not.
But they are all animals, so your reasoning, they should all have the exact same
properties. Can you see now how silly your argument is?
We happen to be a species that evolved to use moral rules for coordinating group behaviour.I disagree. I think behavior is primarily governed by the social
structure and institutions we are brought up in. Muslims have different >> moral values than most of us in the US have. If you were born and
brought up in a entirely different social system chances what ever
berhavior was acceptable in that society, chances are these would be
your standards. There may be cultures where lying to a stranger is
moral. Sex before marriage is acceptable with no moral consequences. In >> others it's condemned.
That is not really a counter-argument. I'm not saying that individual moral norms are evolved, I'm saying that the ability to think in terms
of moral rules is evolved. Leaving aside your straying into bigotry and racism
there, both Christian and Muslim Americans (and indeed Christian, Muslim, atheist etc people all over the world) explain and justify some of their actions through moral rules. It is that ability/tendency that is evolved, not the content of the rules.
There are in
fact lots of studies that show why this form of coordination provides benefits for theI personally love animals and in fact, I do not eat animals except
survival of some species, and hence likely an evolved trait - and one that at least to
some degree we probably share with other primates, which for me would be a good
reason to include them as moral agents and give them rights.
occasionally seafood and
turkey on a certain holliday.
As to animal rights. I'm OK with this. They should not be mistreated.
So a human lacking the ability to moral reflection is simply failing in being a human in
the same way a bird that can not fly fails to embody all that makes birds unique. A theist
who is creationist, a theist who accepts evolution, and an atheist who accepts evolution
can all agree on that , even though their understanding of what that means will differ.
Theist creationists will tend to understand such a human as either sinful or possessed
by demons, separated from god, and deserving punishment in this world and/or the next, or
possibly in need of an exorcism. An atheist who accepts evolution might me more inclined
to see it as a type of illness that requires treatment or in need of a psychiatrist, and will
think of any punishment not so much in terms of deserts but needs of society. A theist
who accepts evolution may frame it as either,, depending on the details of how they reconcile
evolution and theism, and with an atheists who does not accept evolution it will depend on
which alternative exactly they follow. But for neither, there is a problem seeing an a-moral
person as failing in being a human
If
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave >>>>>>>>>>> witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law? >>>>>>>>>>>>
You emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these
Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your
legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of
yours on your doppelganger?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge >>>>>>>
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Burkhard wrote:[snip]
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:12:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
That's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between
rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate
human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a
moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far
as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a
cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's
unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this
is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your
argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as does
the ToE.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should be
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
The ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine". In fact,
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal
species. The laws of physics do not.
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do not
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do.
Whether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not, invokes
no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or anyone else.
Rephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings asThat argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason.
animals (not lifeless matter).
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that your
argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us an animals.
You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the laws of physics.
There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came to
my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions.
It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were very special beings created by God in his image, the image of God, this was
the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by the God, who
loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our behalf. I know
this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals nothing special, nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a remarkable contrast!
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish betweenThat's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living
rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate
human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a
moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far >> as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a
cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's
unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this >> is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as does
the ToE.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should be
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
The ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine".
In fact,
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal species. The laws of physics do not.
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do not
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do.
Whether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not, invokes
no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or anyone else.
Rephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings asThat argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason.
animals (not lifeless matter).
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that your argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us an animals.
You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the laws of physics.
There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came to
my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions.
It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were very special beings created by God in his image, the image of God, this was
the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by the God, who loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our behalf. I know
this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals nothing special, nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a remarkable contrast!
IF you were consistent,
you should attack people who accept the theory of gravity for atheist immorality
because they claim that humans too fall to the ground when thrown of a cliff, the same
way as rocks do. As far as the theory of physics is concerned, there is no difference between animate and lifeless matter, and by your twisted standards,
that should mean the theory of gravity implies that there is no such thing as morality
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/16/24 6:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:[snip]
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:12:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner asThat's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living >>>> human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a >>>> moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far >>>> as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a >>>> cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between >>>>> rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate >>>>> human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's >>>> unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter >>>> and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this >>>> is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your
argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
does the ToE.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine". In fact,
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal
species. The laws of physics do not.
The laws of physics do worse. The laws of physics define us as just another object.
Physics deals with mass, energy and mathematics, nothing to do with morality.
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do notWhether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not,
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do.
invokes no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or
anyone else.
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us anRephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings asThat argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason. >>>>>
animals (not lifeless matter).
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that
your argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
animals. You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the laws
of physics.
The laws of physics have a heck of a lot more to do with defining us as animals than the ToE does. It is biochemistry and anatomy which define
us as animals, and both of those easily reduce to physics. The ToE only tells us how animals (and other life) changed through time.
ToE is undermines morality!
There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came
to my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions. >> It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were
very special beings created by God in his image, the image of God,
this was the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by
the God, who loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our
behalf. I know this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals
nothing special, nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a
remarkable contrast!
Or in fewer words, humans are special (to you) because (your) religious belief says they are.
You are right, to religions we are special, religion lifts us up and stresses the great value of human being, by contrast ToE undermines
human worth and diminishes human value.
You also say that humans cannot be special for any reason other than
your personal religious beliefs. Other religious ideas, if they differ from yours, necessarily result in non-special humans.
Not true, I'm not part of any organized religious organization. So, what
do you think my religion is?
If you think about
it, I think even you will find that that idea is obviously absurd.<
Your comment was _absurd_. It seems every goddamn time a challenge to evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. The
idea is to never doubt, never challenge, never question evolution you
_must_ remain a brainwashed believer!.
You might also note that being special has nothing to do with being
moral. I once again point out that some of the greatest atrocities done
by humans against humans were done *because of* exactly the idea of specialness that you describe.
Nonsense it was just a goddamn excuse they used!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/16/24 6:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:[snip]
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:12:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner asThat's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living >>>> human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a >>>> moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far >>>> as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a >>>> cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between >>>>> rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate >>>>> human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's >>>> unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter >>>> and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this >>>> is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your
argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
does the ToE.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine". In fact,
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal
species. The laws of physics do not.
The laws of physics do worse. The laws of physics define us as just another object.
Physics deals with mass, energy and mathematics, nothing to do with morality.
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do notWhether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not,
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do.
invokes no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or
anyone else.
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us anRephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings asThat argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason. >>>>>
animals (not lifeless matter).
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that
your argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
animals. You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the laws
of physics.
The laws of physics have a heck of a lot more to do with defining us as animals than the ToE does. It is biochemistry and anatomy which define
us as animals, and both of those easily reduce to physics. The ToE only tells us how animals (and other life) changed through time.
ToE is undermines morality!
There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came
to my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions. >> It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were
very special beings created by God in his image, the image of God,
this was the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by
the God, who loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our
behalf. I know this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals
nothing special, nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a
remarkable contrast!
Or in fewer words, humans are special (to you) because (your) religious belief says they are.
You are right, to religions we are special, religion lifts us up and stresses the great value of human being,
by contrast ToE undermines
human worth and diminishes human value.
You also say that humans cannot be special for any reason other than
your personal religious beliefs. Other religious ideas, if they differ from yours, necessarily result in non-special humans.
Not true, I'm not part of any organized religious organization. So, what
do you think my religion is?
If you think about
it, I think even you will find that that idea is obviously absurd.<
Your comment was _absurd_. It seems every goddamn time a challenge to evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. The
idea is to never doubt, never challenge, never question evolution you
_must_ remain a brainwashed believer!.
You might also note that being special has nothing to do with being
moral. I once again point out that some of the greatest atrocities done
by humans against humans were done *because of* exactly the idea of specialness that you describe.
Nonsense it was just a goddamn excuse they used!
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:12:41 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
<snip for readability>
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as does >> the ToE.So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between >>>>> rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate >>>>> human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.That's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living >>>> human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a >>>> moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far >>>> as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a >>>> cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's >>>> unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter >>>> and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this >>>> is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your
argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
Yes indeed, that is my point. What is yours?
You had no point. Physics only with mass, energy and mathematics. Not mortality.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine".
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
The theory of gravity directly applies to human beings as a matter of doctrine
Actually no, gravity does not degrade and diminish humans as does ToE.
In fact,
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal
species. The laws of physics do not.
Of course not. That would be biology. They define us however as just another physical object. Which is my point, which you fail to grasp.
What the do you think ToE is if not biology. Trying to insult me wins
you not goddamn points.
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do notWhether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not, invokes >> no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or anyone else.
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do. >>>
Sigh.....
Here, very slowly:
Your argument:
1) For the theory of evolution, humans are just like other animals
2) moral categories do not apply to other animals
3) therefore, if one accepts the ToE, one has to infer that moral categories
also don't apply to humans
ToE does not infer moral, quite the contrary. Societies not ToE infers
moral codes.
Pretty much every step of this argument is deeply flawed, as my various counterexamples
demonstrate. At the case in hand, my counter-example
focuses on the inference from 1 to 3. My argument has the exact same form as yours
1) For the theory of gravity, humans are just like other physical objects (such as stones)
2) moral categories do not apply to other physical objects (such as stones)
3) therefore, if one accepts the theory of gravity, one has to infer that moral
categories also don't apply to humans.
Gravity doesn't have a thing to do with morality. You have to introduce it.
IF your argument were valid, mine would be valid too. As mine leads to obviously
ridiculous conclusions, my argument is invalid, and hence yours is too.
Was that explicit enought?
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us an animals.Rephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings asThat argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason. >>>>>
animals (not lifeless matter).
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that your argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
Physics automatically involves humans by definitng them as physical objects
You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the laws of physics.
No I didn't, I only had to mirror your flawed reasoning step by step
There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came to >> my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions.
It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were very >> special beings created by God in his image, the image of God, this was
the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by the God, who >> loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our behalf. I know
this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals nothing special,
nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a
remarkable contrast!
That too is simply ridiculous nonsense, especially in your case. You are now
arguing that your self-worth depends on the existence of some ill-defined entity that billions of years ago designed some chemical reactions in a blob of
matter (the first proto-cells), a structure that he.she/it/them implanted in
all living beings, and then went away, or died. Why on earth would that make
us special?
The problem with the above argument is not the ToE, its an almost pathological
insecurity and lack of self-esteem.
"Having been related millions of years ago to some other life forms" says even
less about the worth of a person as "having been related thousands of years
ago with a Celt" says about someone
IF you were consistent,<snip for focus>
you should attack people who accept the theory of gravity for atheist immorality
because they claim that humans too fall to the ground when thrown of a cliff, the same
way as rocks do. As far as the theory of physics is concerned, there is no
difference between animate and lifeless matter, and by your twisted standards,
that should mean the theory of gravity implies that there is no such thing as morality
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 4:32:43 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 3:17:43 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/16/24 6:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:[snip]
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:12:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Burkhard wrote:
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as >> does the ToE.That's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between
rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate >>>>> human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a >>>> moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far
as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a
cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes >>>> far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's
unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this
is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your >>> argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine". In fact,
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal >> species. The laws of physics do not.
The laws of physics do worse. The laws of physics define us as just another object.
Entropy is universal, and it must increase. One is thus ethically duty bound to increase entropy. It may be a small thing, but one should thus randomly pick up items from one aisle in the grocery store and leave them in another, when in a clothing store, browse through the racks and make sure that pants are moved about so that fewer similarly sized waists and lengths remain adjacent, and stop by your local library and relocate a few books to alternativePhysics deals with mass, energy and mathematics, nothing to do with morality.The theory of evolution deal with populations, environmental pressures
and genetic patterns, nothing to do with morality
shelves. For the adept, there are sacred rituals to be applied to filing cabinets.
The complete set of rules are to be kept somewhere on one's desk.
There is a difference - gravity treats us _just_like_ rocks, but gravity
does not label us as rocks.
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Friday 19 January 2024 at 05:17:43 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:Evolution deals with inheritance between alive beings it has nothing
On 1/16/24 6:09 PM, RPhysics deals with mass, energy and mathematics, nothing to do with
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as >>>> does the ToE.That's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living >>>>>> human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a >>>>>> moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far
as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a >>>>>> cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes >>>>>> far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's >>>>>> unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this
is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your >>>>> argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine". In fact, >>>> the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal >>>> species. The laws of physics do not.
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
The laws of physics do worse. The laws of physics define us as just
another object.
morality.
to do with morality.
Not directly, but it defines and labels humans as animals. That
diminishes the value of human life to the same value as any other animal life - animals that we slaughter and eat.
It can't undermine something that is outside of its scope and that it does not address.ToE is undermines morality!
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do notWhether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not,
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do.
invokes no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or >>>> anyone else.
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us anRephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings as >>>>>> animals (not lifeless matter).That argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason. >>>>>>>
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that >>>>> your argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
animals. You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the laws >>>> of physics.
The laws of physics have a heck of a lot more to do with defining us as >>> animals than the ToE does. It is biochemistry and anatomy which define >>> us as animals, and both of those easily reduce to physics. The ToE only >>> tells us how animals (and other life) changed through time.
Not directly.
You mix up vanity and self-righteousness with morality. People who value themselves greatly are most often immoral assholes.You are right, to religions we are special, religion lifts us up and
There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came >>>> to my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions. >>>> It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were >>>> very special beings created by God in his image, the image of God,
this was the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by >>>> the God, who loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our
behalf. I know this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals >>>> nothing special, nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a >>>> remarkable contrast!
Or in fewer words, humans are special (to you) because (your) religious >>> belief says they are.
stresses the great value of human being, by contrast ToE undermines
human worth and diminishes human value.
This is nothing about self-righteousness, but rather about value and
self worth.
It is really your personal business what your world view is. SpecifyNot true, I'm not part of any organized religious organization. So, what >> do you think my religion is?
You also say that humans cannot be special for any reason other than
your personal religious beliefs. Other religious ideas, if they differ >>> from yours, necessarily result in non-special humans.
it yourself, it is not up to others to specify.
I agree here, but when I accused of being motivated by my religion, I
want to know what's their grounds for their accusation, and their
defense of their right to express this charges against me.
Evolution is considered fact by science and ToE is theory of it. Dream of every scientist is to be capable to show that current science is wrong at least to some extent. That is normal.If you think about
it, I think even you will find that that idea is obviously absurd.<
Your comment was _absurd_. It seems every goddamn time a challenge to
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. The
idea is to never doubt, never challenge, never question evolution you
_must_ remain a brainwashed believer!.
The issue is not that you challenge ToE. But your challenge is nonsense. You accuse it not being religion, not addressing origins of life, not addressing origins of morality, not promising you luxurious afterlife.
OK. It is not adding to your self-righteousness and vanity. Too bad. None of scientific theories are supposed to.
How can you tell what is excuse and what is actual reason of someone else'sNonsense it was just a goddamn excuse they used!
You might also note that being special has nothing to do with being
moral. I once again point out that some of the greatest atrocities done >>> by humans against humans were done *because of* exactly the idea of
specialness that you describe.
acts? Atrocities done by whatever fanatics and kooks is common fact.
These are often absurdly irrational so hard to imagine any other reason but
their bizarre beliefs.
Burkhard wrote:<Mercy snip>
sigh again... I introduce gravity to show the flaw in your argument. IF
your argument were logically valid, THEN the theory of gravity also would
undermine morality, because it would "diminish our self-worth
by treating us just like rocks" - which the theory of gravoty
undoubtedly does.
There is a difference - gravity treats us _just_like_ rocks, but gravity
does not label us as rocks.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/16/24 6:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:[snip]
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:12:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner asThat's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living >>>>> human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between >>>>>> rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate >>>>>> human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As
far
as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a >>>>> cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's >>>>> unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter >>>>> and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure
this
is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your
argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
;
does the ToE.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine". In
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
;
fact, the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another
animal species. The laws of physics do not.
The laws of physics do worse. The laws of physics define us as just
another object.
Physics deals with mass, energy and mathematics, nothing to do with
morality.
ToE is undermines morality!If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do notWhether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not,
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do.
;
invokes no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or
anyone else.
I disagree. ToE automatically involves humans by defining us anRephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings asThat argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason.
animals (not lifeless matter).
That would be impossible, The entire point of my argument is that
your argument
would apply just as much to physics as it does to the ToE.
;
animals. You had to _force_ some kind of issue in the case of the
laws of physics.
The laws of physics have a heck of a lot more to do with defining us
as animals than the ToE does. It is biochemistry and anatomy which
define us as animals, and both of those easily reduce to physics. The
ToE only tells us how animals (and other life) changed through time.
There is something that suddenly, and from nowhere just abruptly came
to my mind which demonstrates the contrast between the two contentions.
It goes back to my childhood where I was taught that we humans were
very special beings created by God in his image, the image of God,
this was the greatest honor the greatest privileged conceivable, by
the God, who loved us enough to lay down his life, who died on our
behalf. I know this is nonsense, because we are nothing, but animals
nothing special, nothing of any real worth. .
So, ToE undermines human worth and devalues the human being. Thus a
remarkable contrast!
Or in fewer words, humans are special (to you) because (your)
religious belief says they are.
You are right, to religions we are special, religion lifts us up and
stresses the great value of human being, by contrast ToE undermines
human worth and diminishes human value.
You also say that humans cannot be special for any reason other than
your personal religious beliefs. Other religious ideas, if they differ
from yours, necessarily result in non-special humans.
Not true, I'm not part of any organized religious organization. So, what
do you think my religion is?
 If you think about
it, I think even you will find that that idea is obviously absurd.<
Your comment was _absurd_. It seems every goddamn time a challenge to evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. The
idea is to never doubt, never challenge, never question evolution you
_must_ remain a brainwashed believer!.
You might also note that being special has nothing to do with beingNonsense it was just a goddamn excuse they used!
moral. I once again point out that some of the greatest atrocities
done by humans against humans were done *because of* exactly the idea
of specialness that you describe.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 3:22:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 11:42:44?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:13:35 -0500, Ron DeanI have no need for organized religion. Indeed I consider religion even
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:........
[?
It seems every goddamn time a challenge toYou keep using atheism as an argument against the ToE and that it
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation.
undermines morality - do you not grasp that *you* are the one who is >>>>> mostly making it a religious issue?
Within the context of it being a religious issue, I have given you
examples of leading scientists who are deeply committed Christians and >>>>> have no issue totalling supporting the ToE but you simply handwaved
them away. I have also shared with you some of my views as a committed >>>>> religious believer but you have simply ignored the points I raised and >>>>> walked away from the discussion.
As I observed before, you seem to
find it much easier to argue with atheists than with committed
religious believers.
I would say that he finds it much easier to argue with the imaginary atheists he's heard about from his religious websites than with actual atheists.
more vile, evil and corrupt that I do evolution. That why I'm neither a
religious person or an evolutionist. Both are disastrous!
Of course you need organized religion. Without organized religion who would find quotemines in Darwin and Gould for you to post? You certainly are not interested in reading through those books from cover to cover.
You're a goddamn liar!
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 5:47:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:.....
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 3:22:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 11:42:44?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >> >>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:13:35 -0500, Ron DeanI have no need for organized religion. Indeed I consider religion even
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:........
[?
It seems every goddamn time a challenge toYou keep using atheism as an argument against the ToE and that it
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation.
undermines morality - do you not grasp that *you* are the one who is
mostly making it a religious issue?
Within the context of it being a religious issue, I have given you
examples of leading scientists who are deeply committed Christians and >> >>>> have no issue totalling supporting the ToE but you simply handwaved
them away. I have also shared with you some of my views as a committed >> >>>> religious believer but you have simply ignored the points I raised and >> >>>> walked away from the discussion.
As I observed before, you seem to
find it much easier to argue with atheists than with committed
religious believers.
I would say that he finds it much easier to argue with the imaginary atheists he's heard about from his religious websites than with actual atheists.
more vile, evil and corrupt that I do evolution. That why I'm neither a >> >> religious person or an evolutionist. Both are disastrous!
Of course you need organized religion. Without organized religion who would find quotemines in Darwin and Gould for you to post? You certainly are not interested in reading through those books from cover to cover.
You're a goddamn liar!
I don't think the cursing strengthens your argument.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:40:22 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 5:47:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:No, but it has the advantage of (finally) shortening the
broger...@gmail.com wrote:.....
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 3:22:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 11:42:44?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:13:35 -0500, Ron DeanI have no need for organized religion. Indeed I consider religion even >>>>> more vile, evil and corrupt that I do evolution. That why I'm neither a >>>>> religious person or an evolutionist. Both are disastrous!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:........
[?
It seems every goddamn time a challenge to
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. >>>>>>> You keep using atheism as an argument against the ToE and that it >>>>>>> undermines morality - do you not grasp that *you* are the one who is >>>>>>> mostly making it a religious issue?
Within the context of it being a religious issue, I have given you >>>>>>> examples of leading scientists who are deeply committed Christians and >>>>>>> have no issue totalling supporting the ToE but you simply handwaved >>>>>>> them away. I have also shared with you some of my views as a committed >>>>>>> religious believer but you have simply ignored the points I raised and >>>>>>> walked away from the discussion.
As I observed before, you seem to
find it much easier to argue with atheists than with committed
religious believers.
I would say that he finds it much easier to argue with the imaginary >>>>>> atheists he's heard about from his religious websites than with actual >>>>>> atheists.
Of course you need organized religion. Without organized religion who
would find quotemines in Darwin and Gould for you to post? You
certainly are not interested in reading through those books from cover >>>> to cover.
You're a goddamn liar!
I don't think the cursing strengthens your argument.
list of posters who get through my filters.
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 2:52:43 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:12:41 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:You had no point. Physics only with mass, energy and mathematics. Not
<snip for readability>
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as doesSo anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between >>>>>>> rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate >>>>>>> human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.That's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living >>>>>> human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a >>>>>> moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far
as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a >>>>>> cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes >>>>>> far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's >>>>>> unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this
is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your >>>>> argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
the ToE.
Yes indeed, that is my point. What is yours?
mortality.
The Theory of evolution only deals with populations, DNA and mathematics, not with morality (I assume you meant morality, not mortality) Which
is the point you keep missing. All your "arguments" have exact mirror images in physics, the difference between them is only in your head
What the do you think ToE is if not biology. Trying to insult me wins
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine".
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
The theory of gravity directly applies to human beings as a matter of doctrine
Actually no, gravity does not degrade and diminish humans as does ToE. >>>> In fact,
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal >>>> species. The laws of physics do not.
Of course not. That would be biology. They define us however as just
another physical object. Which is my point, which you fail to grasp.
you not goddamn points.
First , pointing out that you consistently misrepresent
the arguments I'm making is hardly an insult.
And second, we have here again a prime example of your inability
to understand pretty simple arguments. You said:
"The ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal species. The laws of physics do not."
To which I replield:
"Of course not. That would be biology."
With other words: of course the laws of physics do not define
us as other animals. Nobody said they did. So why do you
even raise this point? For classification of living beings,
biology (including the ToE) is the right theory. BUT that
does not address my point, which is that "getting classed
together with other things" has no implications for
morality. It does not have so in physics, where we are lumped
together with rocks, and it does not do so in biology, where
we are lumped together with horses
ToE does not infer moral, quite the contrary. Societies not ToE infers
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do notWhether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not, invokes >>>> no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or anyone else.
fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do. >>>
Sigh.....
Here, very slowly:
Your argument:
1) For the theory of evolution, humans are just like other animals
2) moral categories do not apply to other animals
3) therefore, if one accepts the ToE, one has to infer that moral categories
also don't apply to humans
moral codes.
Indeed. So with other words your claim that the ToE undermines morality
is idiotic, glad you finally accept that. For morality, it is much
more sensible to look at society., the ToE has as little to do with morality as physics has. But it was consistently only you who tried to derive moral implications from the ToE, not anyone else.
Gravity doesn't have a thing to do with morality. You have to introduce it.
Pretty much every step of this argument is deeply flawed, as my various counterexamples
demonstrate. At the case in hand, my counter-example
focuses on the inference from 1 to 3. My argument has the exact same form as yours
1) For the theory of gravity, humans are just like other physical objects (such as stones)
2) moral categories do not apply to other physical objects (such as stones)
3) therefore, if one accepts the theory of gravity, one has to infer that moral
categories also don't apply to humans.
sigh again... I introduce gravity to show the flaw in your argument. IF your argument were logically valid, THEN the theory of gravity also would undermine morality, because it would "diminish our self-worth
by treating us just like rocks" - which the theory of gravoty
undoubtedly does.
There is a difference - gravity treats us _just_like_ rocks, but gravity does not label us as rocks.
(1) I doubt an electrical engineer could have so little math background
as not to see the weakness in your seashell collecting argument. It's a simple model in probability and it requires assumptions that are not
remotely met by fossil collections.
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 3:42:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:22:30 -0500, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 11:42:44?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:13:35 -0500, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I have no need for organized religion. Indeed I consider religion even >> more vile, evil and corrupt that I do evolution.
........
It seems every goddamn time a challenge toundermines morality - do you not grasp that *you* are the one who is >>>> mostly making it a religious issue?
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. >>>> You keep using atheism as an argument against the ToE and that it
Within the context of it being a religious issue, I have given you >>>> examples of leading scientists who are deeply committed Christians and >>>> have no issue totalling supporting the ToE but you simply handwaved >>>> them away. I have also shared with you some of my views as a committed >>>> religious believer but you have simply ignored the points I raised and >>>> walked away from the discussion.
As I observed before, you seem to
find it much easier to argue with atheists than with committed
religious believers.
I would say that he finds it much easier to argue with the imaginary atheists he's heard about from his religious websites than with actual atheists.
I believe in organised religion and I am a fully committed member of a particularly highly organised religious organisation. Does that make
me a vile, evil and corrupt person?\
No. But everyone who loves life, realizing that life comes to an end, everyone from, the moment of their first breath faces a death penalty.
But if you love life and hope, desire and wish that another life could continue even after this life comes to an end: this is where religion
comes into play and exploits people by promising eternal life after
death. But there is something blocking you hopes that's sin. You have to get rid of sin, sin cannot inherit eternal life.
But can't one live a good life, being kind to others, doing good and helping others. No, no, no there are requirements that has to be met.
You are a sinner and sin has to be taken away. In order to do this,
there are ordinances, laws and obedience that's required, such as
baptism by water and baptism into the spirit, laying on of hands etc..
and obedience to the law. OK, so I'll have somebody to do this for me. No,no,no God has chosen certain people to represent him on the earth.
So, in order to have your baptism etc recognized by God you have no
choice, but to summit to God's chosen representatives. Who alone has the authority to baptize, to lay on of hands, even marriage has to be by our authority, without this, you're living in sin. Living together without marriage is sin. And representatives this religion alone has the power
to marry you. Also you are required to pay your tithing that is 10% of
your income to this church/religion. "This religion" can be any one of countless churches, sects and cults in existence. If you think I wrong, then prove me wrong.
Just a post or two ago you rejected organized religion. Now you seem to be in favor. You also seem to be seriously distressed about something. If that's the case, this may not be the best place to be.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:49:55 +0000, Ernest Major
On 19/01/2024 12:05, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
(1) I doubt an electrical engineer could have so little math background
as not to see the weakness in your seashell collecting argument. It's a
simple model in probability and it requires assumptions that are not
remotely met by fossil collections.
A little while back I found some weak evidence that he actually is an >electrical engineer. (When he claimed that a post had been written by a >coworker, that he had gotten fired, I looked at the headers of his
posts, and they are consistent with him having been some sort of engineer.)
It's hard to understand why a creationist would make such transparently >flawed arguments - surely they would realise that it is self-defeating.
But I suspect that narcissists tend to underestimate other people.
There are other potential hypotheses, such as "performance artistry" (cf >JTEM) and senility.
The post to which you allude above is likely this one: **************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Modern Grinches
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 14:57:31 -0500
Message-ID: <LIjkN.120202$Wp_8.117917@fx17.iad>
****************************
The "weak evidence" to which you allude might be "Omicronmedia" in the
return path, which might refer to a large marketing corporation. If
so, such a company would be large enough to hire many different
professions.
Previously, R.Dean self-identified as having been an electrical
engineer here:
*****************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 01:59:47 -0400
Message-ID: <nnHyM.22982$Wk53.20870@fx01.iad>
*****************************
IIRC R.Dean long ago once self-identified as a design engineer. It's possible he equates designing electrical circuits as design
engineering. Most design engineers and electrical engineers I know
would disagree with him.
In any case, his professional expertise doesn't inform any of his
opinions expressed in T.O.
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:22:30 -0500, Ron DeanNo. But everyone who loves life, realizing that life comes to an end,
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 11:42:44?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:13:35 -0500, Ron DeanI have no need for organized religion. Indeed I consider religion even >>>> more vile, evil and corrupt that I do evolution.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:........
[?
It seems every goddamn time a challenge toundermines morality - do you not grasp that *you* are the one who is >>>>>> mostly making it a religious issue?
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. >>>>>> You keep using atheism as an argument against the ToE and that it
Within the context of it being a religious issue, I have given you >>>>>> examples of leading scientists who are deeply committed Christians and >>>>>> have no issue totalling supporting the ToE but you simply handwaved >>>>>> them away. I have also shared with you some of my views as a committed >>>>>> religious believer but you have simply ignored the points I raised and >>>>>> walked away from the discussion.
As I observed before, you seem to
find it much easier to argue with atheists than with committed
religious believers.
I would say that he finds it much easier to argue with the imaginary atheists he's heard about from his religious websites than with actual atheists.
I believe in organised religion and I am a fully committed member of a
particularly highly organised religious organisation. Does that make
me a vile, evil and corrupt person?\
everyone from, the moment of their first breath faces a death penalty.
But if you love life and hope, desire and wish that another life could
continue even after this life comes to an end: this is where religion
comes into play and exploits people by promising eternal life after
death. But there is something blocking you hopes that's sin. You have to
get rid of sin, sin cannot inherit eternal life.
But can't one live a good life, being kind to others, doing good and
helping others. No, no, no there are requirements that has to be met.
You are a sinner and sin has to be taken away. In order to do this,
there are ordinances, laws and obedience that's required, such as
baptism by water and baptism into the spirit, laying on of hands etc..
and obedience to the law. OK, so I'll have somebody to do this for me.
No,no,no God has chosen certain people to represent him on the earth.
So, in order to have your baptism etc recognized by God you have no
choice, but to summit to God's chosen representatives. Who alone has the
authority to baptize, to lay on of hands, even marriage has to be by our
authority, without this, you're living in sin. Living together without
marriage is sin. And representatives this religion alone has the power
to marry you. Also you are required to pay your tithing that is 10% of
your income to this church/religion. "This religion" can be any one of
countless churches, sects and cults in existence. If you think I wrong,
then prove me wrong.
Just a post or two ago you rejected organized religion. Now you seem to be in favor. You also seem to be seriously distressed about something. If that's the case, this may not be the best place to be.
That why I'm neither a
religious person or an evolutionist. Both are disastrous!
[?
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 5:37:45?PM UTC-5, El Kabong wrote:
jillery wrote:
That header,
Return-Path:
I repeat. Doxing is bullshit. Let it go.
"But I don't like him" isn't an excuse for doxing someone. Stop it.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 3:42:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:22:30 -0500, Ron DeanNo. But everyone who loves life, realizing that life comes to an end,
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 11:42:44?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:13:35 -0500, Ron DeanI have no need for organized religion. Indeed I consider religion even >>>> more vile, evil and corrupt that I do evolution.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:........
[?
It seems every goddamn time a challenge to
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. >>>>>> You keep using atheism as an argument against the ToE and that it >>>>>> undermines morality - do you not grasp that *you* are the one who is >>>>>> mostly making it a religious issue?
Within the context of it being a religious issue, I have given you >>>>>> examples of leading scientists who are deeply committed Christians and >>>>>> have no issue totalling supporting the ToE but you simply handwaved >>>>>> them away. I have also shared with you some of my views as a committed >>>>>> religious believer but you have simply ignored the points I raised and >>>>>> walked away from the discussion.
As I observed before, you seem to
find it much easier to argue with atheists than with committed
religious believers.
I would say that he finds it much easier to argue with the imaginary atheists he's heard about from his religious websites than with actual atheists.
I believe in organised religion and I am a fully committed member of a >>> particularly highly organised religious organisation. Does that make
me a vile, evil and corrupt person?\
everyone from, the moment of their first breath faces a death penalty.
But if you love life and hope, desire and wish that another life could
continue even after this life comes to an end: this is where religion
comes into play and exploits people by promising eternal life after
death. But there is something blocking you hopes that's sin. You have to >> get rid of sin, sin cannot inherit eternal life.
But can't one live a good life, being kind to others, doing good and
helping others. No, no, no there are requirements that has to be met.
You are a sinner and sin has to be taken away. In order to do this,
there are ordinances, laws and obedience that's required, such as
baptism by water and baptism into the spirit, laying on of hands etc..
and obedience to the law. OK, so I'll have somebody to do this for me.
No,no,no God has chosen certain people to represent him on the earth.
So, in order to have your baptism etc recognized by God you have no
choice, but to summit to God's chosen representatives. Who alone has the >> authority to baptize, to lay on of hands, even marriage has to be by our >> authority, without this, you're living in sin. Living together without
marriage is sin. And representatives this religion alone has the power
to marry you. Also you are required to pay your tithing that is 10% of
your income to this church/religion. "This religion" can be any one of
countless churches, sects and cults in existence. If you think I wrong,
then prove me wrong.
Just a post or two ago you rejected organized religion. Now you seem to be in favor. You also seem to be seriously distressed about something. If that's the case, this may not be the best place to be.
I don't think you read what I wrote. There is nothing I wrote that
favors religion.
Religions use authority like Damascus Sword which is
held over your head by a thread.
[snip]
What I wrote was a critique a condemnation of religion. Religion used authority as Damascus sword held over your head by a thread. There is a
desire by some people to gain power and control over the lives, feelings
and hopes of other people. Religions used authority for this reason. It
is successful in that people who accept it, have willingly accepted
it's power over their lives. This is how people are exploited by religion.
Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 3:42:44?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:22:30 -0500, Ron DeanNo. But everyone who loves life, realizing that life comes to an end, >> everyone from, the moment of their first breath faces a death penalty. >> But if you love life and hope, desire and wish that another life could >> continue even after this life comes to an end: this is where religion >> comes into play and exploits people by promising eternal life after
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 11:42:44?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:I have no need for organized religion. Indeed I consider religion even
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 22:13:35 -0500, Ron Dean........
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[?
It seems every goddamn time a challenge tomostly making it a religious issue?
evolution is voiced it's charged that religion is the motivation. >>>>>> You keep using atheism as an argument against the ToE and that it >>>>>> undermines morality - do you not grasp that *you* are the one who is
Within the context of it being a religious issue, I have given you >>>>>> examples of leading scientists who are deeply committed Christians and
have no issue totalling supporting the ToE but you simply handwaved >>>>>> them away. I have also shared with you some of my views as a committed
religious believer but you have simply ignored the points I raised and
walked away from the discussion.
As I observed before, you seem to
find it much easier to argue with atheists than with committed >>>>>> religious believers.
I would say that he finds it much easier to argue with the imaginary atheists he's heard about from his religious websites than with actual atheists.
more vile, evil and corrupt that I do evolution.
I believe in organised religion and I am a fully committed member of a >>> particularly highly organised religious organisation. Does that make >>> me a vile, evil and corrupt person?\
death. But there is something blocking you hopes that's sin. You have to
get rid of sin, sin cannot inherit eternal life.
But can't one live a good life, being kind to others, doing good and
helping others. No, no, no there are requirements that has to be met. >> You are a sinner and sin has to be taken away. In order to do this,
there are ordinances, laws and obedience that's required, such as
baptism by water and baptism into the spirit, laying on of hands etc.. >> and obedience to the law. OK, so I'll have somebody to do this for me. >> No,no,no God has chosen certain people to represent him on the earth. >> So, in order to have your baptism etc recognized by God you have no
choice, but to summit to God's chosen representatives. Who alone has the
authority to baptize, to lay on of hands, even marriage has to be by our
authority, without this, you're living in sin. Living together without >> marriage is sin. And representatives this religion alone has the power >> to marry you. Also you are required to pay your tithing that is 10% of >> your income to this church/religion. "This religion" can be any one of >> countless churches, sects and cults in existence. If you think I wrong, >> then prove me wrong.
Just a post or two ago you rejected organized religion. Now you seem to be in favor. You also seem to be seriously distressed about something. If that's the case, this may not be the best place to be.
I don't think you read what I wrote. There is nothing I wrote thatYou wrote that everyone needs to diligently follow God's
favors religion.
representatives on earth, and I suppose you would be the
top one.
Are you trying to say now that you were just spoofing?
You've never shown a sense o' humor before. Or maybe
this is your way of coming out as an atheist?
Religions use authority like Damascus Sword which isPssshaw.
held over your head by a thread.
Godless evolutionists have their Ninevah Numchuks.
Fashioned for the amoral out of elephant ivory and baby
seal sinew, they are great for intimidating believers &
"IDests".
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 7:57:43 PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 2:52:43 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:There is a difference - gravity treats us _just_like_ rocks, but gravity >> does not label us as rocks.
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:12:41 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>> <snip for readability>You had no point. Physics only with mass, energy and mathematics. Not >>>> mortality.
The law of physics does apply to human beings in the same manner as doesSo anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish betweenThat's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living
rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate >>>>>>>>> human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a >>>>>>>> moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far
as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a
cliff. This is an amoral act. (_the car is not his) But this goes >>>>>>>> far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's
unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this
is _not_ what you meant.
I thought it should be clear with what I meant. If one applied your >>>>>>> argument consistently, everybody who thinks the law of
physics apply to human beings loses the basis for moral
reasoning.
the ToE.
Yes indeed, that is my point. What is yours?
The Theory of evolution only deals with populations, DNA and mathematics,
not with morality (I assume you meant morality, not mortality) Which
is the point you keep missing. All your "arguments" have exact mirror >>> images in physics, the difference between them is only in your head
What the do you think ToE is if not biology. Trying to insult me wins >>>> you not goddamn points.
Accepting the theory of gravity, in YOUR world, should beThe ToE directly applies to humans as a matter of "doctrine".
immoral, at least when applying it to humans.
The theory of gravity directly applies to human beings as a matter of doctrine
Actually no, gravity does not degrade and diminish humans as does ToE. >>>>>> In fact,
the ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal >>>>>> species. The laws of physics do not.
Of course not. That would be biology. They define us however as just >>>>> another physical object. Which is my point, which you fail to grasp. >>>>>
First , pointing out that you consistently misrepresent
the arguments I'm making is hardly an insult.
And second, we have here again a prime example of your inability
to understand pretty simple arguments. You said:
"The ToE labels humans and actually defines us as just another animal >>> species. The laws of physics do not."
To which I replield:
"Of course not. That would be biology."
With other words: of course the laws of physics do not define
us as other animals. Nobody said they did. So why do you
even raise this point? For classification of living beings,
biology (including the ToE) is the right theory. BUT that
does not address my point, which is that "getting classed
together with other things" has no implications for
morality. It does not have so in physics, where we are lumped
together with rocks, and it does not do so in biology, where
we are lumped together with horses
ToE does not infer moral, quite the contrary. Societies not ToE infers >>>> moral codes.
If you were consistent, you should also argue that humans do not >>>>>>> fall from cliffs e.g. the same way as rocks do. >>>Whether rocks and humans fall from a cliff the same way or not, invokes
no moral issue either to the laws of physics or anything or anyone else.
Sigh.....
Here, very slowly:
Your argument:
1) For the theory of evolution, humans are just like other animals >>>>> 2) moral categories do not apply to other animals
3) therefore, if one accepts the ToE, one has to infer that moral categories
also don't apply to humans
Indeed. So with other words your claim that the ToE undermines morality >>> is idiotic, glad you finally accept that. For morality, it is much
more sensible to look at society., the ToE has as little to do with
morality as physics has. But it was consistently only you who tried to >>> derive moral implications from the ToE, not anyone else.
Gravity doesn't have a thing to do with morality. You have to introduce it.
Pretty much every step of this argument is deeply flawed, as my various counterexamples
demonstrate. At the case in hand, my counter-example
focuses on the inference from 1 to 3. My argument has the exact same form as yours
1) For the theory of gravity, humans are just like other physical objects (such as stones)
2) moral categories do not apply to other physical objects (such as stones)
3) therefore, if one accepts the theory of gravity, one has to infer that moral
categories also don't apply to humans.
sigh again... I introduce gravity to show the flaw in your argument. IF >>> your argument were logically valid, THEN the theory of gravity also would
undermine morality, because it would "diminish our self-worth
by treating us just like rocks" - which the theory of gravoty
undoubtedly does.
The theory of gravity labels us as objects, together in a group
with rocks. The theory of evolution labels us as lifeforms, together
in a group with monkeys, cows or plants. Neither grouping has
any bearing on questions of morality
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and wrong.
On 21 Jan 2024 10:47:57 GMT, G <g...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
What I wrote was a critique a condemnation of religion. Religion used
authority as Damascus sword held over your head by a thread. There is a
That's "Damocles" not "Damascus".Perhaps Damocles wielded a Damascus sword 8-}
G
desire by some people to gain power and control over the lives, feelings >> and hopes of other people. Religions used authority for this reason. It >> is successful in that people who accept it, have willingly accepted
it's power over their lives. This is how people are exploited by religion.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is
wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule.
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant
across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been
accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the reason
why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just in the same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important
one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical imperative: I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to happen to me,
I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to them. So
from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my parents, plus the recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where members do not
fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds, is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may be less likely
to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that "because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical theory, I can carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is encountered, it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding case to demand or
permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell me, and flesh this one out.
A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. I can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights, therefore I too don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker (for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as a justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong, and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.: miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules and constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes this then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) , sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual balances in detail these
conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the individual case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and bodily integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship, social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair treatment by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play, entertainment, and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above process gives me the golden
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But there is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise economic security over
autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree. Often, they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and
wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is
wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule.
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant
across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been
accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the reason
why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just in the
same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that
systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important
one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical imperative: >> I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to happen to me, >> I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel
wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to them. So
from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my parents, plus the
recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where members do not >> fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds, is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may be less likely
to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that "because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical theory, I can
carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is encountered, it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding case to demand or
permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell me, and flesh this one out.
A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. I can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights, therefore I too >> don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker (for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as a justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong, and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.: miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules and constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes this then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) , sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual balances in detail these
conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the individual case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and bodily integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship, social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair treatment by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play, entertainment, and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above process gives me the golden
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But there is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise economic security over
autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree. Often, they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
The following appeared years ago. I have never been able
to find more on the research mentioned, and to make it
harder, google confuses conscience with consciousness,
but good read:
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29632772.cms>
"The part of the brain that makes humans superior to all
known animals, and which also functions as the voice from
within — popularly called conscience — has finally been
found.
"Scientists from the Oxford University have for the first
time identified an area of the human brain that appears
unlike anything in the brains of other primates. It is
part of the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, a region of the
brain known for over 150 years for being involved in many
of the highest aspects of cognition and language."
<see more at site... it doesn't like having passages
copied to clipboards.>
The takeaway is that the human "conscience" is an evolved
part of the brain, and that human morality is innate and
biological, not a consequence of religious belief.
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:37:46 PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/01/2024 20:09, El Kabong wrote:
Burkhard wrote:It might be this paper
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and >>>>> wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is
wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule.
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant
across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been
accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the reason >>>> why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just in the >>>> same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that
systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important
one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical imperative:
I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to happen to me,
I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel >>>> wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to them. So >>>> from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my parents, plus the
recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where members do not
fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds, is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may be less likely
to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that "because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical theory, I can
carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is encountered, it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding case to demand or
permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell me, and flesh this one out.
A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. I can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights, therefore I too
don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker (for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as a justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong, and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.: miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules and constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes this then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) , sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual balances in detail these
conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the individual case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and bodily integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship, social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair treatment by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play, entertainment, and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above process gives me the golden
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But there is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise economic security over
autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree. Often, they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
The following appeared years ago. I have never been able
to find more on the research mentioned, and to make it
harder, google confuses conscience with consciousness,
but good read:
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/30/12255?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=JNeurosci_TrendMD_0
For more candidates
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Neubert+lateral+frontal+pole+prefrontal+cortex&hl=en&as_sdt=7%2C39&as_ylo=&as_yhi=2014
--
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29632772.cms>
"The part of the brain that makes humans superior to all
known animals, and which also functions as the voice from
within — popularly called conscience — has finally been
found.
"Scientists from the Oxford University have for the first
time identified an area of the human brain that appears
unlike anything in the brains of other primates. It is
part of the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, a region of the
brain known for over 150 years for being involved in many
of the highest aspects of cognition and language."
<see more at site... it doesn't like having passages
copied to clipboards.>
The takeaway is that the human "conscience" is an evolved
part of the brain, and that human morality is innate and
biological, not a consequence of religious belief.
alias Ernest Major
If it is the first paper you mentioned, the Times of India does not seem to have done a great job characterizing it.
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule.
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the reason why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just in the same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important
one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical imperative:
I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to happen to me,
I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to them. So from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my parents, plus the
recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where members do not
fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds, is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may be less likely
to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that "because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical theory, I can
carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is encountered, it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding case to demand or
permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell me, and flesh this one out.
A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. I can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights, therefore I too
don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker (for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as a justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong, and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.: miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules and constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes this then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) , sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual balances in detail these
conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the individual case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and bodily integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship, social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair treatment by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play, entertainment, and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above process gives me the goldenThe following appeared years ago. I have never been able
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But there is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise economic security over
autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree. Often, they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
to find more on the research mentioned, and to make it
harder, google confuses conscience with consciousness,
but good read:
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29632772.cms>
"The part of the brain that makes humans superior to all
known animals, and which also functions as the voice from
within — popularly called conscience — has finally been
found.
"Scientists from the Oxford University have for the first
time identified an area of the human brain that appears
unlike anything in the brains of other primates. It is
part of the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, a region of the
brain known for over 150 years for being involved in many
of the highest aspects of cognition and language."
<see more at site... it doesn't like having passages
copied to clipboards.>
The takeaway is that the human "conscience" is an evolved
part of the brain, and that human morality is innate and
biological, not a consequence of religious belief.
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:12:46 PM UTC, El Kabong wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
The following appeared years ago. I have never been ableOkay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and >>>> wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is >>> wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule.
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant >>> across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been
accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the reason >>> why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just in the
same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that >>> systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important
one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical imperative:
I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to happen to me,
I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel >>> wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to them. So >>> from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my parents, plus the
recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where members do not
fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds, is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may be less likely
to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that "because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical theory, I can
carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is encountered, it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding case to demand or
permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell me, and flesh this one out.
A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. I can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights, therefore I too
don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker (for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as a justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong, and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.: miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules and constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes this then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) , sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual balances in detail these
conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the individual case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and bodily integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship, social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair treatment by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play, entertainment, and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above process gives me the golden
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But there is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise economic security over
autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree. Often, they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
to find more on the research mentioned, and to make it
harder, google confuses conscience with consciousness,
but good read:
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29632772.cms>
"The part of the brain that makes humans superior to all
known animals, and which also functions as the voice from
within — popularly called conscience — has finally been
found.
"Scientists from the Oxford University have for the first
time identified an area of the human brain that appears
unlike anything in the brains of other primates. It is
part of the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, a region of the
brain known for over 150 years for being involved in many
of the highest aspects of cognition and language."
<see more at site... it doesn't like having passages
copied to clipboards.>
The takeaway is that the human "conscience" is an evolved
part of the brain, and that human morality is innate and
biological, not a consequence of religious belief.
Well, first I would not buy into that juxtapostion to
start with, I think the case for the evolutionary roots of religious beliefs is quite strong. I might go even further, and argue
that several hundred thousand years ago, an innate tendency to
think in terms of deities could well have amplified aspects of the innate ability to ethical reasoning in a way that was beneficial in
evolutionary terms. So e.g. Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006)
Hand of God, mind of man: punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation
Evolutionary Psychology 4: 219–233 In a nutshell, if people believe that they are constantly observed by an invisible agent with significant powers of
punished for transgressions, AND know that others of the tribe belief this too,
they can more easily trust these other member. This could have faciliated e.g. shared childcare.
What you probably mean is that "today", such beliefs are not any longer necessary. Though even then, your formulation is problematically ambiguous. It seems a clear sociological fact that the details and content of
the moral beliefs of many people is influenced by their society, and if this
society has strongly entrenched religious beliefs, these will shape also what persons believe. Again, you probably mean something much weaker
than what you say, that is religious beliefs are not necessary for moral beliefs, and that other forces can as well work on the innate basis.
If what was said were true, the right and wrong concepts would be true, historically and universal.
in some kind of god(s) is universal, everything from a sun god to an
animal to a mountain to an invisible god.
hole" that needs to be filled with _something_ in order to feel complete
and this seems to be almost universally true.
And whatever it is that replaces god in this "god hole", will either be denied or defended to a huge measure. I suspect that for some Darwinian evolution is fitted into this god hole which replaces a god.
El Kabong wrote:
Burkhard wrote:I think morality is based upon whatever social standards that exist in
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and >>>> wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is
wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
 I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule. >>>
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant
across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been
accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the reason >>> why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just in
the
same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that
systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important
one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical
imperative:
I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to happen
to me,
I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel
wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to them. So
from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my parents,
plus the
recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general
rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where members
do not
 fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of
personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against
killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds,
is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may
be less likely
 to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that
"because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having
them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more
complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to
scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical
theory, I can
carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually
sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided
as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is
prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is encountered,
it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to
the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding
case to demand or
 permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell
me, and flesh this one out.
 A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. I
can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the
golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights,
therefore I too
don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker
(for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible
justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent
lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as a
justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically
implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong,
and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not
harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.:
miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules and
constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the
intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes this
then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) ,
sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything
is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual
balances in detail these
 conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the individual
case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule
already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as
humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data
ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and bodily
integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship,
social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair treatment
by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play, entertainment,
and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above
process gives me the golden
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in
others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological
element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy
member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But there
is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting
values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise
economic security over
 autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these
disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree. Often,
they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both
agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
The following appeared years ago. I have never been able
to find more on the research mentioned, and to make it
harder, google confuses conscience with consciousness,
but good read:
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29632772.cms>
"The part of the brain that makes humans superior to all
known animals, and which also functions as the voice from
within — popularly called conscience — has finally been
found.
"Scientists from the Oxford University have for the first
time identified an area of the human brain that appears
unlike anything in the brains of other primates. It is
part of the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, a region of the
brain known for over 150 years for being involved in many
of the highest aspects of cognition and language."
<see more at site... it doesn't like having passages
copied to clipboards.>
The takeaway is that the human "conscience" is an evolved
part of the brain, and that human morality is innate and
biological, not a consequence of religious belief.
that society. Looking back through history standards changed.
In primitive societies the standards were different from what we in the judo-christian world accept. In some societies, they saw no wrong in
human sacrifices.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 1:32:47 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:That is _your_ interpretation! I'm not surprised.
El Kabong wrote:......
Burkhard wrote:I think morality is based upon whatever social standards that exist in
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right >>>>>> and
wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is >>>>> wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule. >>>>>
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant >>>>> across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been
accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the
reason
why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just
in the
same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that >>>>> systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important >>>>> one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical
imperative:
I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to
happen to me,
I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel >>>>> wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to
them. So
from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my
parents, plus the
recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general
rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where
members do not
fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of
personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against
killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds,
is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may
be less likely
to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that
"because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having
them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more
complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to
scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical
theory, I can
carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually
sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided
as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is
prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is
encountered, it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to
the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding
case to demand or
permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell
me, and flesh this one out.
A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. I
can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the
golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights,
therefore I too
don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker
(for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible
justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent
lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as
a justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically
implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong,
and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not
harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.:
miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules
and constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the
intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes
this then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) ,
sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything
is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual
balances in detail these
conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the individual
case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule
already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as
humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data
ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and
bodily integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship,
social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair
treatment by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play,
entertainment, and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above
process gives me the golden
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in
others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological
element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy
member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But
there is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting
values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise
economic security over
autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these
disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree.
Often, they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both
agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
The following appeared years ago. I have never been able
to find more on the research mentioned, and to make it
harder, google confuses conscience with consciousness,
but good read:
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29632772.cms>
"The part of the brain that makes humans superior to all
known animals, and which also functions as the voice from
within — popularly called conscience — has finally been
found.
"Scientists from the Oxford University have for the first
time identified an area of the human brain that appears
unlike anything in the brains of other primates. It is
part of the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, a region of the
brain known for over 150 years for being involved in many
of the highest aspects of cognition and language."
<see more at site... it doesn't like having passages
copied to clipboards.>
The takeaway is that the human "conscience" is an evolved
part of the brain, and that human morality is innate and
biological, not a consequence of religious belief.
that society. Looking back through history standards changed.
In
primitive societies the standards were different from what we in the
judo-christian world accept.
Ah, traditional Judo-Christian values.....Love your enemy, and use his
strength against him.
In some societies, they saw no wrong in
human sacrifices.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/22/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Burkhard wrote:I think morality is based upon whatever social standards that exist in
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:17:45?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:<...>
Okay, what is your basis for morality? That is your sense of right and >>>>> wrong.
Don't know if i have a "basis", never been a great fan of
foundationalim in any branch of philosophy. but
as a general approach, what Rawls described as"reflexive
equilibrium" is I think a good model:
I start with some basic and deeply held intuitions as raw data
I don't need a god, book, or theory to tell me that killing babies is >>>> wrong, e.g., and conversely, any purported ethical system
that demands killing babies from me, as e.g. in Hosea 13:16,
I consider falsified by this discrepancy between intuition and rule. >>>>
Undoubtedly, some of these basic intuitions I have as the result
of my formative years, and are influenced by parents and society,
but as an empirical fact, I notice that they are pretty much constant >>>> across times and societies. Note, I'm not saying that "having been
accepted at (almost) all societies at (almost ) all times" is the
reason
why they are normatively valid, rather, it is a sanity check. Just
in the
same way that it is reassuring that not only me, but everyone who
was there saw the elephant on Princess Street.
I then infer from these individual intuitions some general rules that >>>> systematise them. A very important rule, probably the most important >>>> one, is what has been called the golden rule, or the categorical
imperative:
I recognise that there are things that I really don't want to happen >>>> to me,
I strongly wish that nobody inflicts them on me, and if they do I feel >>>> wronged. I don't want to get killed, e.g..
I am also able to recognise others as essentially the same as
me, and therefore likely sharing that feeling when it comes to them. So >>>> from the strong intuition that it would be wrong to kill my parents, >>>> plus the
recognition that I too don't want to get killed, I infer a general
rule: "do not kill
others" or "killing is wrong".
Some of this reasoning is enabled by biology: a species where
members do not
fear their own death, maybe because they don't have a sense of
personal identity
extended in time, are less likely to come up with a rule against
killing conspecifics.
Similarly, the ability for empathy, the recognition of other minds, >>>> is at least partly
caused by mirror neurons in our brain, and species lacking them may >>>> be less likely
to come up with such a rule. But again, the argument is not that >>>> "because we
have mirror neurons etc", killing others is wrong, rather, having
them enables us
to recognise the wrongness (though the full story is more
complicated) - just as
having evolved eyes that perceive in the visual spectrum led to
scientific theories
describing the behaviour of visible objects first.
Once I have a set of similar generalisations, a nascent ethical
theory, I can
carry out some soundness checks. The rules should e.g. be factually >>>> sound, and
not demand the impossible, e.g. not demand of humans to fly unaided >>>> as a moral obligation.
They also should be consistent, and not e.g. have both "killing is >>>> prohibited"
and "killing is mandatory". If such an inconsistency is encountered, >>>> it needs to be
resolved. One possibility e.g. is to treat one as the exception to
the other: "Generally,
killing is wrong, unless exceptionally there is a good overriding
case to demand or
permit it".
At that point I can go back to the intuitions, see what they tell
me, and flesh this one out.
A strong intuition e.g. is killing in self defense is permitted. >>>> I can then try to find a
general rule that further justifies this intuition, e.g. again the
golden rule:
The attacker does not think of me as equal holder of rights,
therefore I too
don't need to do this with them, as a possible candidate. A weaker
(for me) intuition
would be that it may be permissible as retribution, and a possible
justification for
this intuition is that the deterrent effect saves other, innocent
lives. This then becomes
partly a factual question, and on reflection I would dismiss it as a >>>> justification because
a) the data does not support it and b) it is also psychologically
implausible. I can then look
at my contradictory intuition that says the death penalty is wrong, >>>> and justify it its need
to task third parties with killing defenceless people who did not
harm them (or a
range of other considerations, some of them again factual, e.g.:
miscarriages happen, it is
applied unevenly, etc)
Eventually, I should have a system where basic intuitions, rules and >>>> constraining empirical facts
are in balance. This I can then apply to situations where the
intuitions are less clear or
entirely absent, and see what the rules would tell me. Sometimes
this then leads to
re-trained or sharpened intuitions (not all intuitions are sound) , >>>> sometimes to refined or
adjusted rules, it is an always ongoing process to keep everything >>>> is equilibrium. Here an
element of contingent social factors comes in: how an individual
balances in detail these
conflicting intuitions, and how they are applied to the
individual case, will differ between
societies and cultures
As far as general rules are concerned, I mentioned the golden rule
already. This one for
me then gets concreteness by asking what the things are that we as
humans value for our
lives. For convenience the next I cite from our handout on data
ethics, though most
of this paragraph cam e I think from Shannon, not me:
"We all have vital interests in food, water, air, shelter, and
bodily integrity. But we also have
strong life interests in our health, happiness, family, friendship, >>>> social reputation, liberty, autonomy,
knowledge, privacy, economic security, respectful and fair treatment >>>> by others, education,
meaningful work, and opportunities for leisure, play, entertainment, >>>> and creative and political
expression, among other things"
As I valued these things in my own life, and because the above
process gives me the golden
rule, acting in such a way that protects these interest also in
others would be
the next "layer" of general rules. Again, there is a biological
element in this: We happen to
have evolved into the type of species where the normal, healthy
member values these
things, which is why we find them across cultures and times.But
there is also room for society
and contingent historical factors: how these sometimes conflicting >>>> values and interests are
reconciled will differ between societies - some will emphasise
economic security over
autonomy, others will give autonomy preference. Sometimes, these
disagreements will
be irreconcilable - a case where one has to agree to disagree.
Often, they can be resolved,
e.g. by showing that one approach also enhances a value where both
agree it should take
precedence, here for instance an interest in life and health.
The following appeared years ago. I have never been able
to find more on the research mentioned, and to make it
harder, google confuses conscience with consciousness,
but good read:
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/29632772.cms>
"The part of the brain that makes humans superior to all
known animals, and which also functions as the voice from
within — popularly called conscience — has finally been
found.
"Scientists from the Oxford University have for the first
time identified an area of the human brain that appears
unlike anything in the brains of other primates. It is
part of the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, a region of the
brain known for over 150 years for being involved in many
of the highest aspects of cognition and language."
<see more at site... it doesn't like having passages
copied to clipboards.>
The takeaway is that the human "conscience" is an evolved
part of the brain, and that human morality is innate and
biological, not a consequence of religious belief.
that society. Looking back through history standards changed.
So far, I agree with you.
In primitive societies the standards were different from what we in
the judo-christian world accept. In some societies, they saw no wrong
in human sacrifices.
How many primitive societies have you participated in? From my wide reading of mythology, it looks to me like moral standards have not differed a great deal. The main differences are that primitive
societies sanction more retributive justice (likely due to lack of institutional justice) and value hospitality higher than modern society. (I should note, though, I have made no formal study of such things.)
Regarding human sacrifice, most of that was done to military enemies,
and if you look at recent history and current events, you see modern societies, too, are more than willing to kill even civilians in enemy countries. Other human sacrifice was done at the behest of the gods, which does not, I think, advance your argument.
I don 't think the fact that human sacrifices were done at the behest of
the gods changes anything
I've read about certain earlier tribes in Latin America that engaged in human sacrifice. Why do you
that it matters as to the reason for human sacrifice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures
When I read _The Canterbury Tales_ years ago, what struck me most is
that human nature has not changed in the last 600 years. The same, I think, is true of the last 6000 years.
I also read Canterbury Tales. It was required reading during my High
School days.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 486 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 132:33:33 |
| Calls: | 9,656 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,707 |
| Messages: | 6,166,641 |