Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 24th November 2017, 10:45

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moral Acts
#61
RE: Moral Acts
(11th January 2017, 14:32)Catholic_Lady Wrote: One of the double standards I have seen here among some (not all) members is that they're quick to blame a person's religious belief for the bad things they do. But when religious people do good things, motivated by their religious beliefs, religion all of the sudden has 0 to do with it.

By the same token, we cannot credit God with only the good things that happen to us. Bad things do happen to good people and we must admit (I believe) that not all of those evils are self-inflicted. God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no.
Reply
#62
RE: Moral Acts
-and sometimes the answer is malaria, apparently, lol.

Or maybe, just maybe, god doesn't have a thing to do with any of it.
Eat em up beat em up then switch sides.


Reply
#63
RE: Moral Acts
(11th January 2017, 14:29)Rhythm Wrote: Men and women do the work, faith gets the credit, lol.
Why not if they are motivated by their religious beliefs?

(11th January 2017, 14:29)Rhythm Wrote: On the advantageous nature of cruelty.  That seems to be what alot of people in prison thought, before they were imprisoned.

As have all the dictators and tyrants throughout history. Crime does pay, if you are clever enough not to get caught.

(11th January 2017, 14:29)Rhythm Wrote: On your easy "justification" for slavery.  That's force and intimidation, might makes right garbage, not a justification.

Might makes right IS the justification.

(11th January 2017, 14:29)Rhythm Wrote: The menial shit gets done now too, without anyone being a slave, in case you didn't notice.

Only since the industrial revolution. In the 200,000 years prior to that, history shows that slavery, serfdom, and indentured service were universally practiced.

(11th January 2017, 14:29)Rhythm Wrote: On surviving and fluorishing...by -what- metric?  That the younger girl seems more fuckable, to you?  I mean honestly, Chad.........lol?  Something tells me grannies help us survive and flourish too...but in a pinch, we do have a tendency to prioritize the young.

Yes, because the 14-year old girl is fertile and the old woman is past child bearing years. In a pinch? Absolutely, right. Your own intuition reveals that human beings instinctively favor, however slightly, the healthy and fertile. Is that evolved instinct a valid basis for any moral principle? I have yet to see a naturalistic explanation for why Mankind should not take evolution into its own hands and practice eugenics. Why is it wrong to terminate the mentally disabled, crippled, and/or terminally ill? Why would it be wrong to intentionally divert resources to benefit of those deemed genetically superior to others? Remember, it's cheating to appeal to anything outside evolved instinct or practical advantages.

(11th January 2017, 14:29)Rhythm Wrote: On the value of life. Does it matter whether or not the universe cares?  We care.  Is that not enough, not enough for whom, for what?

Yes, we care. But why do we care? Why should we care?
Reply
#64
RE: Moral Acts
(11th January 2017, 14:04)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(11th January 2017, 13:39)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I'm facepalming so hard right now. Make a new thread about it.

Bring it on. Would you be interested in a formal debate?

I wouldn't accept any of your premises. Also you'd do all your research and make it look professional. But your premise would still be flawed.

There's nothing for me to debate. I can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to show that morality hasn't simply evolved and that religion isn't entirely unnecessary.

The debate woild consist of me giving short sentenced responses to your paragraphs to simply tell you that your premise was an unnecessary assumption, your logic was invalid or your so-called evidence wasn't evidence.

Moral behavior even predates humanity. So obviously it predates religion.
We do not change our minds. Our minds change us.
Reply
#65
RE: Moral Acts
(11th January 2017, 15:11)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Why not if they are motivated by their religious beliefs?
Because their religious beliefs didn't do the work, and are not required to have done the work......?  All the faithing in the world achieves exactly nothing.  

Quote:As have all the dictators and tyrants throughout history. Crime does pay, if you are clever enough not to get caught.
Some people take that risk, though, you did just call them tyrants and dictators...and it;s not like they got to take their gold with them when they kicked it, if they managed to keep it till then.  Seems to me that the end result isn't all that advantageous......but I have a pretty strong moral bent, so, mileage may vary.    

Quote:Might makes right IS the justification.
We use those terms differently, I suppose.  Do you feel that slavery is justified by might?  

Quote:Only since the industrial revolution. In the 200,000 years prior to that, history shows that slavery, serfdom, and indentured service were universally practiced.
You explained fairly easily why.  I don't own any of my fieldhands, they don't operate equipment.  This work -never- required slavery.  

Quote:Yes, because the 14-year old girl is fertile and the old woman is past child bearing years.
So, is that the only metric of value for women?  Sounds more abrahamic than secular or naturalistic, to me, lol.

Quote:In a pinch? Absolutely, right. Your own intuition reveals that human beings instinctively favor, however slightly, the healthy and fertile.
I was going more for youth over age when death is on the line, horndog.

Quote:Is that evolved instinct a valid basis for any moral principle?
Not any moral principle of mine.

Quote:I have yet to see a naturalistic explanation for why Mankind should not take evolution into its own hands and practice eugenics.
Really..........?  You;ve never seen anyone mention that supporting eugenics might, oh, idk, backfire on the supporters?  

Quote:  Why is it wrong to terminate the mentally disabled, crippled, and/or terminally ill?
If for no other reason, because you do not want to die in such a way, and might find yourself counted among them.  Honestly, when you ask questions like this it makes me doubt not only your basic humanity, but your mind.  I get that you think god has given you reason not to do these things...but i that the only reason you have?  If there were no god to give you those reasons you'd be plum out of reasons......?

Quote:Why would it be wrong to intentionally divert resources to benefit of those deemed genetically superior to others? Remember, it's cheating to appeal to anything outside evolved instinct or practical advantages.
If intelligence has a genetic component, then we already do.  Personally, I prefer to push resources towards performance.  I've seen naturally gifted people squander their abilities and hard workers overcome their limitations.  Not sure how this is a moral issue, though?

Quote:Yes, we care. But why do we care? Why should we care?
That's a non-issue for morality, Neo.  Whether or not we should care, or whether or not our reasons for caring are true or accurate in any sense are not required for a moral system to exist or be practical.  If your god doesn't exist, for example, it hardly matters in light of your moral stance against killing the weak.  You care, that's enough to keep you from doing it, until you stop believing, I guess....unless you have other reasons yourself and all of these questions were idiotic posturing?
Eat em up beat em up then switch sides.


Reply
#66
RE: Moral Acts
(11th January 2017, 15:18)Alasdair Ham Wrote:
(11th January 2017, 14:04)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Bring it on. Would you be interested in a formal debate?

I wouldn't accept any of your premises. Also you'd do all your research and make it look professional. But your premise would still be flawed.

There's nothing for me to debate. I can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to show that morality hasn't simply evolved and that religion isn't entirely unnecessary.

The debate woild consist of me giving short sentenced responses to your paragraphs to simply tell you that your premise was an unnecessary assumption, your logic was invalid or your so-called evidence wasn't evidence.

Moral behavior even predates humanity. So obviously it predates religion.

So no debate. -sigh-
Reply
#67
RE: Moral Acts
ROFLOL

It's not worthy of one Tongue
We do not change our minds. Our minds change us.
Reply
#68
RE: Moral Acts
(11th January 2017, 09:49)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(11th January 2017, 01:19)chimp3 Wrote: No. Not irrational though. We must argue, debate, and come to common agreement about what is moral. Human well being is a good starting point.

People can arrive at moral principles by observing Nature precisely because we live in an intelligently ordered universe and Man has the capacity to think having been created in the image of a rational Creator. You are only addressing the epistemological question of how we can know moral principles and not the ontological basis explaining how there can be any kind of morality at all.
You are welcome to place your flag and claim morality for Christianity but I am not compelled by your argumemt.  Your god is man made and so is the moral teachings ascribed to him. All morality is human morality.

Nationalism: Accepting credit for accomplishments without any effort on your part!






Reply
#69
RE: Moral Acts
To me morality was invented by man to keep society moving forward. Since we have baseline animal instincts under our superior minds; if you take away the laws of society and all of our creature comforts and morality is nullified out of the equation of life. So, were does this leave us as species? Is religion the answer? All that does is keep the human race under control to keep the our minds caged in the way of conventional thinking. Which voids out all of our advancements, we have men and woman in space and have cured diseases, and have invited a medical procedure to keep our population under control. Since we have progressed so far, why does religion still keep such a powerful element of control?

Morality is something that moves along and adapts with the current progression of society, but there is a problem. We left the old systems intact and it has come back to haunt us. The old system that we had served it's purpose to make sure that we did not die out as species, so it did server it's function, but left a lot of consequences that we have had to face head on. So, in short morality as we know it caused more long term harm.
     “A man isn't tiny or giant enough to defeat anything” Yukio Mishima


Reply
#70
RE: Moral Acts
(11th January 2017, 16:09)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(11th January 2017, 15:18)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I wouldn't accept any of your premises. Also you'd do all your research and make it look professional. But your premise would still be flawed.

There's nothing for me to debate. I can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to show that morality hasn't simply evolved and that religion isn't entirely unnecessary.

The debate woild consist of me giving short sentenced responses to your paragraphs to simply tell you that your premise was an unnecessary assumption, your logic was invalid or your so-called evidence wasn't evidence.

Moral behavior even predates humanity. So obviously it predates religion.

So no debate. -sigh-

I'll debate you if you want.  But it's likely to go much as Alasdair Ham has said.

(11th January 2017, 15:11)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Yes, because the 14-year old girl is fertile and the old woman is past child bearing years. In a pinch? Absolutely, right. Your own intuition reveals that human beings instinctively favor, however slightly, the healthy and fertile. Is that evolved instinct a valid basis for any moral principle?  I have yet to see a naturalistic explanation for why Mankind should not take evolution into its own hands and practice eugenics. Why is it wrong to terminate the mentally disabled, crippled, and/or terminally ill? Why would it be wrong to intentionally divert resources to benefit of those deemed genetically superior to others? Remember, it's cheating to appeal to anything outside evolved instinct or practical advantages.

It's considered wrong because enough people have enough emotional attachment to the mentally disabled and crippled that THEIR discomfort is also taken into account in weighing of collective feelings (read: instincts) of society. That's all there is to it: people call wrong that which they collectively dislike.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Universal Moral Code BlindedWantsToSee 57 860 2nd November 2017, 18:29
Last Post: BlindedWantsToSee
  A moral situation Lutrinae 10 490 22nd May 2017, 14:59
Last Post: vorlon13
  On Moral Authorities FallentoReason 266 7299 21st November 2016, 00:54
Last Post: theologian
  Your moral compass mcolafson 58 2215 11th October 2016, 06:39
Last Post: robvalue
  Moral realism vs moral anti-realism debate is a moot point Pizza 1 653 7th March 2015, 20:13
Last Post: CapnAwesome
  Moral law in Humans and other animals The Reality Salesman01 13 1650 28th February 2015, 01:32
Last Post: The Reality Salesman01
  Why 'should' atheists be moral? vincent150 119 9224 4th January 2015, 13:13
Last Post: CapnAwesome
  Moral Dilemma EgoRaptor 98 9470 20th February 2014, 18:22
Last Post: FlyingNarwhal
  Moral Principles: 10 Myths Rahul 8 1967 14th February 2014, 00:20
Last Post: bennyboy
  Not Convinced Determinism Makes Sense of Moral Responsibility. Convince Me It Does Mudhammam 44 6381 17th December 2013, 00:47
Last Post: MindForgedManacle



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)