(January 22, 2019 at 9:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: Plato didn't invent morality either. 

No one said he did.

Quote:

Quote:Quote Acrobat, "It’s not about what’s right and wrong, as much as it is about what ultimately the root of right and wrong."

Nature, evolution, not Superman vs Lex Luther, not Yoda vs Darth Vader, not God vs Satan.

[/quote]

Evolution underlies the various mechanical components, of all our behaviors and inclinations, including those underlying immoral behavior, such scapegoating, greed, selfishness, delusions, etc....

Morality while relying on some of these components, is also a belief system, even if vaguely formed. It's beliefs in moral obligations and duties. My evolutionary sourced feeling and urges, might lead me to steal your wallet, but it's my moral belief, that define it as wrong, as something I ought not to do, not evolution, which at best is series of sensations governing our behaviors, not reducible to beliefs themselves.

Quote:I do not need any claim of the super natural to have empathy for others, or to figure out that if I don't want to be physically harmed, or have my shit stolen, maybe it's not a good idea to do that to others.

Or in other words, "I don't like the feeling of being harmed, I also don't like the feeling of others being harmed either, as a result of my empathy." In such statements you're just expressing to me your personal feelings, and not a moral claim at all. A belief that empathy, compassion is authoritative, as placing obligation on not just your behavior, but the behaviors of others, might be. Love becomes God like.

Quote:I am sorry someone sold you the idea that magic is the root cause of human behaviors, good or bad, but there is nothing magic, and no super natural cognition needed to explain why humans do good or bad.

I'm sorry you spend most of your post strawmanning people, and attributing to them beliefs they don't hold. I don't believe magic is the root cause of human behaviors, good or bad, I don't believe in magic, I don't even know what supernatural cognition means, for you to suggest that I believe it either.

Quote:Quote Acrobat..... "Or in other words, "I don't like the feeling of being harmed, I also don't like the feeling of others being harmed either, as a result of my empathy." In such statements you're just expressing to me your personal feelings, and not a moral claim at all. A belief that empathy, compassion is authoritative, as placing obligation on not just your behavior, but the behaviors of others, might be. Love becomes God like. 

No not my personal feelings at all. Other species form groups too. Other species care for other individuals within their groups too. Evolution explains the behavior of life, not old books of mythology.

"God like" is the same thing as....

"Yoda like"

As 

"Harry Potter like"

As 

"Superman like"

Now do not use the word "authoritative" if you are going to cling to old mythology, because the "authorities" that ruled back then were kings, and kings are dictators, rulers not voted into office, rulers whom don't need your consent, and rulers that cannot be voted out of their positions.

The holy writings of antiquity reflect the age of kings, and have nothing to do one bit with our modern concept of "authority" by consent of the governed.

(January 22, 2019 at 11:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: No not my personal feelings at all. Other species form groups too. Other species care for other individuals within their groups too. Evolution explains the behavior of life, not old books of mythology.

You appealed to empathy, as evolutionary component of your moral views.

And yes empathy is your personal feelings, even though others also have similar personal feelings.

Several people might share similar empathetic feelings and sensations when observing certain phenomena, like an innocent person being harmed.

(January 21, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Again your talking about the light from the sun not the sun itself.

Confusing a concept relating to the ontology of Good, with epistemoloucal views.

You have no idea what you're talking about..lol, do you?  Carry on.

Quote:It’s not about what’s right and wrong, as much as it is about what ultimately the root of right and wrong. A subjectivist might say it’s rooted in our own personal al feelings and opinions, like the our taste in food, or movies, a relativist might say it’s rooted in the collective opinions of our particular society and culture. While Plato would say its all ultimately rooted in The Good.

-and a realist maintains that it is rooted in facts that we can observe. Gee, I sure am glad we cleared that up.......

(January 22, 2019 at 11:40 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and a realist maintains that it is rooted in facts that we can observe.  Gee, I sure am glad we cleared that up.......

No a moral realist, believes moral facts and moral values exist and "that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts." Or in other words a realist, believes in an objective moral reality, and not in morality as a human construct as subjectivist and relativist positions might convey.


This shouldn't be conflated with a moral subjectivist, who might consider certain garden variety facts, such as negative consequences as informing their moral judgements. Just because certain facts might inform your moral opinion, doesn't make you a moral realist.

(January 22, 2019 at 12:05 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 11:40 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and a realist maintains that it is rooted in facts that we can observe.  Gee, I sure am glad we cleared that up.......

No a moral realist, believes moral facts and moral values exist and "that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts." Or in other words a realist, believes in an objective moral reality, and not in morality as a human construct as subjectivist and relativist positions might convey.

What part of this do you think is arguing with me?

Quote:This shouldn't be conflated with a moral subjectivist, who might consider certain garden variety facts, such as negative consequences as informing their moral judgements. Just because certain facts might inform your moral opinion, doesn't make you a moral realist.

I thought we already cleared up the little known fact that moral realists and moral subjectivists were different things, lol?

Was there some question you had about non-natural moral realism, or some particular objection to the claim it makes....or no? That there are objective facts of good and bad...that these facts are not, themselves, natural.

(January 22, 2019 at 11:29 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 11:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: No not my personal feelings at all. Other species form groups too. Other species care for other individuals within their groups too. Evolution explains the behavior of life, not old books of mythology.

You appealed to empathy, as evolutionary component of your moral views.

And yes empathy is your personal feelings, even though others also have similar personal feelings.

Several people might share similar  empathetic feelings and sensations when observing certain phenomena, like an innocent person being harmed.

No I did not claim empathy was a moral view, I simply said it is a product of evolution. Cruelty is also a product of evolution. It is still up to humanity how we interact with each other. 

Tornados are also natural, that does not mean I want one flattening my house or killing me. 

All I am saying is nature is nature, be it constructive or destructive, including human behavior. 

If you can accept that a mother elephant or lioness will protect their young, while other rivals or predators will kill their young, all I am saying is BOTH are products of evolution.

I really do not care if you want to claim Buddha or Vishnu or Allah or Venus or Apollo are where human morality come from. I say most humans ARE GOOD. I simply disagree as to where humans think our behaviors, good or bad are coming from.

---

How is it this cat, whom cant read the Koran or Bible or Torah figured out the kid was in danger? Religious people would say "my diety did it", or "miracle". I'd say that the cat was merely defending a source of something familiar to it that gave it mutual benefit of comfort, food AND LOVE.



And these Elephants also cant read the bible or koran or Hindu Baghavad Gita. But still managed to save a calf.