What is a person?

[jstrodel]

I would say it's a human being, any human being.

---

jstrodel Wrote: If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.

It's a good job you do believe in god jstrodel because you obviously have no natural empathy, the way you speak makes me think that without a belief in god you would behave like a psychopath and probably be in prison.

Are people bound to obey empathic feelings only if they have them?

---

If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.

I think reason is a light/ocean/tree/garden and that it is both unified and complex. Language makes it complex but it's reality is one and indivisible.

Reason includes logic, morality, praise, honor, and value.

When you try to apply it to all sorts of things, it is divisible and complex.

When you reflect upon it's nature it's a vast ocean that is a light. It is a upside down tree that is rooted deep in unity but branches out in complexity.

Not really sure how this answers my objection.

[genkaus]

If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.

Ofcourse there is. Rocks aren't capable of reflecting upon their actions and consequences or even their identities - which is why no form of morality would be applicable to them. Humans, on the other hand, are capable of that, which makes them moral agents.

[jstrodel]

If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.

Ofcourse there is. Rocks aren't capable of reflecting upon their actions and consequences or even their identities - which is why no form of morality would be applicable to them. Humans, on the other hand, are capable of that, which makes them moral agents.

You are making an argument from authority to an embedded concept of "morality" as it exists in Western civilization. But that morality refers to theistic norms. In what sense does the concept of morality exist outside of this? Morality in a theistic context has a specific reference and does not exist as a postulate of social control but is intended to point to the nature of human life. I do not see how this is tenable given naturalism.

What about instead of calling the ethics of atheists "morals", instead the more accurate term "opinions" was used? This is far more correct, as the sort of postulate of social control that atheists typically advocate has much more in common with an opinion than an intricate ethical system intended to describe not only what humans should do but what they are.

I do not see anywhere in evolutionary theory where attributes such reflecting on the consequences of actions would be defined in any significant way. This is more of a postulate of good behavior, but other postulates could be found.

I think that you have shown that atheists can have moral opinions. But there is really no intellectual rigor associated with the opinions and people could easily discard them, with a sarcastic look with techno music blaring and call them "fairy tales".

[Darkstar]

*Darkstar clicks on page one of this thread*

*Darkstar is confused*

*Darkstar realizes it's a necropost*

*Darkstar stares holes into his signiture*

*Darkstar realizes that he doesn't usually display his signiture with short posts*

*Darkstar decides to stop talking in third person and just leave the thread because he doesn't have anything useful to say anyways*

[genkaus]

You are making an argument from authority to an embedded concept of "morality" as it exists in Western civilization.

Exactly whose authority am I arguing from?

But that morality refers to theistic norms.

It may resemble the concept of morality which exists in Western Civilization and which you consider derived from theistic norms - but that does not mean it works on the same principles or has the same premises.

In what sense does the concept of morality exist outside of this?

Outside of what? The theistic norms?

Morality in a theistic context has a specific reference and does not exist as a postulate of social control but is intended to point to the nature of human life. I do not see how this is tenable given naturalism.

Then you need to study more about morality. It is, by definition, a guide for your actions. It has no limitation to be applicable only at societal level. In fact, a lot of naturalistic and atheistic philosophies treat it as more that a postulate of social control

What about instead of calling the ethics of atheists "morals", instead the more accurate term "opinions" was used?

Then that term would be equally applicable to theists as well. More so, in fact, given the ethical "opinions" of atheists tend to be based on a degree of evidence.

This is far more correct, as the sort of postulate of social control that atheists typically advocate has much more in common with an opinion than an intricate ethical system intended to describe not only what humans should do but what they are.

That some atheists may postulate morality as a measure of social control does not limit it to that nor does limiting it in such a way reduce it to their opinions. Further, morality is based on what humans are - so it is not necessary for it to describe it but it helps with the justification.

I do not see anywhere in evolutionary theory where attributes such reflecting on the consequences of actions would be defined in any significant way. This is more of a postulate of good behavior, but other postulates could be found.

And why would those other postulates be significant to morality?

I think that you have shown that atheists can have moral opinions. But there is really no intellectual rigor associated with the opinions and people could easily discard them, with a sarcastic look with techno music blaring and call them "fairy tales".

If they could then they should. As they should discard theistic morals as fairy tales.

[paulpablo]

[quote='paulpablo' pid='409657' dateline='1362471232']
I would say it's a human being, any human being.

---

It's a good job you do believe in god jstrodel because you obviously have no natural empathy, the way you speak makes me think that without a belief in god you would behave like a psychopath and probably be in prison.

Are people bound to obey empathic feelings only if they have them?

Are people bound to obey commandments just because they have them? No one is bound to obey anything except what their own brain tells them to obey.

[Esquilax]

You are making an argument from authority to an embedded concept of "morality" as it exists in Western civilization. But that morality refers to theistic norms. In what sense does the concept of morality exist outside of this? Morality in a theistic context has a specific reference and does not exist as a postulate of social control but is intended to point to the nature of human life. I do not see how this is tenable given naturalism.

Theistic morality simply co-opts existing morality and takes credit for it, unless you're seriously arguing that before the commandments were issued, people had literally no problems with killing and rape.

What about instead of calling the ethics of atheists "morals", instead the more accurate term "opinions" was used? This is far more correct, as the sort of postulate of social control that atheists typically advocate has much more in common with an opinion than an intricate ethical system intended to describe not only what humans should do but what they are.

Alright. Fair's fair, though: we should also stop calling theistic ethics "morals" too, and stick with more accurate term "orders" since your morality comes from something external to you, and thus can change at any time based upon the whims of an incorporeal entity that can have no empathy for mortal, corporeal beings, and has a history of, well, genocide.

I do not see anywhere in evolutionary theory where attributes such reflecting on the consequences of actions would be defined in any significant way. This is more of a postulate of good behavior, but other postulates could be found.

Let me help you with that. Humans are social animals, I'm sure you could agree with that. We form groups in order to survive, family units to help each other, civilizations to keep out nature and external dangers. This, of course, extends back into the past, where co-operation was forged via necessity for survival. Anti-social behavior, like violence against the group and so on, would lead to either ejection from the group- even today, we remove troublemakers from society- or retaliation. Either way, anti-social proto humans would hardly be expected to survive long on their own, and certainly not to breed. In this way, empathetic and co-operative behaviors became genetically favorable, whereas violent and negative behaviors become less so.

And hence, we have the formation of morality, stemming from the health of the group. There's an explanation for everything, assuming you're willing to actually look.

I think that you have shown that atheists can have moral opinions. But there is really no intellectual rigor associated with the opinions and people could easily discard them, with a sarcastic look with techno music blaring and call them "fairy tales".

No intellectual rigor? Excuse me? I can- and just did- provide you with a summary of the basis of secular morality. Your answer, on the other hand, is one sentence: "God told me to." Which of us has put more thought into this, Strodel?

And yeah, people can discard secular morality: this is only an argument against it if you're arguing that it's impossible to discard biblical morality. And if that were true, why do you have a concept of sin and a need for forgiveness?

[genkaus]

Let me help you with that. Humans are social animals, I'm sure you could agree with that. We form groups in order to survive, family units to help each other, civilizations to keep out nature and external dangers. This, of course, extends back into the past, where co-operation was forged via necessity for survival. Anti-social behavior, like violence against the group and so on, would lead to either ejection from the group- even today, we remove troublemakers from society- or retaliation. Either way, anti-social proto humans would hardly be expected to survive long on their own, and certainly not to breed. In this way, empathetic and co-operative behaviors became genetically favorable, whereas violent and negative behaviors become less so.

And hence, we have the formation of morality, stemming from the health of the group. There's an explanation for everything, assuming you're willing to actually look.

What you have explained here is the evolution of empathy or the altruistic instinct. Other animals have the same instincts as well and yet we do not hold them to any standard of moral behavior thereby suggesting that there is more to morality than following your empathetic instincts. Especially given the fact that those are not the only instincts to develop over the course of human evolution, you still haven't justified choosing those over others as a basis for morality. This is not a sufficient basis for secular ethics.

[The Magic Pudding]

*Darkstar clicks on page one of this thread*

*Darkstar is confused*

*Darkstar realizes it's a necropost*

*Darkstar stares holes into his signiture*

*Darkstar realizes that he doesn't usually display his signiture with short posts*

*Darkstar decides to stop talking in third person and just leave the thread because he doesn't have anything useful to say anyways*

I'm sensing an anti dead bias here.
I'm pretty sure some kind of non PC ism is being displayed but I'm not sure which.
Animationism is the best I could come up with but I'm not happy with it.

[Ben Davis]

I use 'person' as another word for 'human being'. I don't use it to describe any other animal/object. Also, as I've aged/grown, I very rarely feel the need to even anthropomorphise any more.

I may occasionally use the word 'personality' in a collcoquial fashion but that's because words like 'felinality' (for example) don't provide the appropriate meaning.