Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

religion, hitler and objective morality oh my

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 9:17:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People here challenge me on the idea that our morality does not come from benefit to society or human and animal well being. I think we can merely look at our examples of religion and Hitler to see this is wrong. What tools do they use to corrupt our morality? Lets see.

For this case we are going to stick with the abrahamic religions. It started with Judaism. Throughout the course of Judaism there has been gods law. Why are Jews suppose to follow these laws, because God says so, some may say. I contend though that Judaism has used a program of benefit and reward. Stories of god punishing for not following his law,as well as stories of god rewarding for following his law. The overall theme is the closer israel comes to following gods law the better it will be for their society. So, the Jews follow their religious morals because in their belief structure Good Ole Yah' rewards them for it, making it better for them.

Christianity stepped up it up even further, they gave a bigger reward. This reward was eternal happiness or eternal bliss. They were also using this to influence people into taking on their religious moral principles. We can follow this up with a similar styling of Allah and how the Muslims did the same thing. These 3 religions have corrupted the facts of the ground to change the way people morally act.

My last example of this will be Hitler, somehow managed to convince the german population that they were one society and the Jews were a lower form of life that was harmful to this society. The germans acted on incorrect facts about benefit to society and killed the Jews. Once again skewing our views of morality.

Once we accept that some of our bigger "moral" systems or moral problems have exploited the real cause of morality, it becomes clear that human well being and benefit to society are actually deeply routed in our actual morality. Once you find this out, it is safe to say that there are things that are objectively more beneficial to human well being or to societies then others. Hence why we can say murder is immoral. Murder in 99.9999%(made up statistic but probably a low estimate) is not beneficial to our route cause of morality, so we can make objective moral statements
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 9:34:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:17:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
People here challenge me on the idea that our morality does not come from benefit to society or human and animal well being. I think we can merely look at our examples of religion and Hitler to see this is wrong. What tools do they use to corrupt our morality? Lets see.

For this case we are going to stick with the abrahamic religions. It started with Judaism. Throughout the course of Judaism there has been gods law. Why are Jews suppose to follow these laws, because God says so, some may say. I contend though that Judaism has used a program of benefit and reward. Stories of god punishing for not following his law,as well as stories of god rewarding for following his law. The overall theme is the closer israel comes to following gods law the better it will be for their society. So, the Jews follow their religious morals because in their belief structure Good Ole Yah' rewards them for it, making it better for them.

Christianity stepped up it up even further, they gave a bigger reward. This reward was eternal happiness or eternal bliss. They were also using this to influence people into taking on their religious moral principles. We can follow this up with a similar styling of Allah and how the Muslims did the same thing. These 3 religions have corrupted the facts of the ground to change the way people morally act.

My last example of this will be Hitler, somehow managed to convince the german population that they were one society and the Jews were a lower form of life that was harmful to this society. The germans acted on incorrect facts about benefit to society and killed the Jews. Once again skewing our views of morality.


Once we accept that some of our bigger "moral" systems or moral problems have exploited the real cause of morality, it becomes clear that human well being and benefit to society are actually deeply routed in our actual morality. Once you find this out, it is safe to say that there are things that are objectively more beneficial to human well being or to societies then others. Hence why we can say murder is immoral. Murder in 99.9999%(made up statistic but probably a low estimate) is not beneficial to our route cause of morality, so we can make objective moral statements

Face it izbo, basing your argument on appeal to consequences is a blatant logical fallacy.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:09:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:34:21 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:17:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
People here challenge me on the idea that our morality does not come from benefit to society or human and animal well being. I think we can merely look at our examples of religion and Hitler to see this is wrong. What tools do they use to corrupt our morality? Lets see.

For this case we are going to stick with the abrahamic religions. It started with Judaism. Throughout the course of Judaism there has been gods law. Why are Jews suppose to follow these laws, because God says so, some may say. I contend though that Judaism has used a program of benefit and reward. Stories of god punishing for not following his law,as well as stories of god rewarding for following his law. The overall theme is the closer israel comes to following gods law the better it will be for their society. So, the Jews follow their religious morals because in their belief structure Good Ole Yah' rewards them for it, making it better for them.

Christianity stepped up it up even further, they gave a bigger reward. This reward was eternal happiness or eternal bliss. They were also using this to influence people into taking on their religious moral principles. We can follow this up with a similar styling of Allah and how the Muslims did the same thing. These 3 religions have corrupted the facts of the ground to change the way people morally act.

My last example of this will be Hitler, somehow managed to convince the german population that they were one society and the Jews were a lower form of life that was harmful to this society. The germans acted on incorrect facts about benefit to society and killed the Jews. Once again skewing our views of morality.


Once we accept that some of our bigger "moral" systems or moral problems have exploited the real cause of morality, it becomes clear that human well being and benefit to society are actually deeply routed in our actual morality. Once you find this out, it is safe to say that there are things that are objectively more beneficial to human well being or to societies then others. Hence why we can say murder is immoral. Murder in 99.9999%(made up statistic but probably a low estimate) is not beneficial to our route cause of morality, so we can make objective moral statements

Face it izbo, basing your argument on appeal to consequences is a blatant logical fallacy.

Are you goddamn stupid, I have just demonstrated that in religions and the nazis used lies about the benefit to society, as a way to make people do things that are commonly thought of as immoral or to get them to follow the morality. Hence morality is the measure of how an action effects society, how can discussing effect on society be an appeal to consequence, when it is a measure of consequences, jackass. As, Sam Harris, A Ph. D in neuroscience and B.A in philosophy, argues in the book The moral landscape, to complain about saying that morality has to do with human well being is about as useful as to say we can't determine someone is more healthy then another because it is beneficial to that person, in my words of course. Are you fuckin retarded, really?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:13:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The fact that the World took a massive global donkey dump on Germany after WWI had absolutely no effect on the morals of fine, upstanding German citizens of course.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:15:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
tl;dr.

But, I would like to share a quote which I think is related:

"What is the greatest lie every created? What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind? Slavery? The Holocaust? Dictatorship? No. It's the tool with which all that wickedness is built: altruism. Whenever anyone wants others to do their work, they call upon their altruism. Never mind your own needs, they say, think of the needs of... of whoever. The state. The poor. Of the army, of the king, of God! The list goes on and on. How many catastrophes were launched with the words "think of yourself"? It's the "king and country" crowd who light the torch of destruction. It is this great inversion, this ancient lie, which has chained humanity to an endless cycle of guilt and failure. My journey to Rapture was my second exodus. In 1919, I fled a country that had traded in despotism for insanity. The Marxist revolution simply traded one lie for another. Instead of one man, the tsar, owning the work of all the people, all the people owned the work of all of the people. So, I came to America: where a man could own his own work, where a man could benefit from the brilliance of his own mind, the strength of his own muscles, the might of his own will. I had thought I had left the parasites of Moscow behind me. I had thought I had left the Marxist altruists to their collective farms and their five-year plans. But as the German fools threw themselves on Hitler's sword "for the good of the Reich", the Americans drank deeper and deeper of the Bolshevik poison, spoon-fed to them by Roosevelt and his New Dealists. And so, I asked myself: in what country was there a place for men like me - men who refused to say "yes" to the parasites and the doubters, men who believed that work was sacred and property rights inviolate. And then one day, the happy answer came to me, my friends: there was no country for people like me! And that was the moment I decided... to build one." - Andrew Ryan
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.

As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:13:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The fact that the World took a massive global donkey dump on Germany after WWI had absolutely no effect on the morals of fine, upstanding German citizens of course.

as a matter of fact it did, it made it easier for hitler to persuade them of this untruth about benefit.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:25:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:13:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The fact that the World took a massive global donkey dump on Germany after WWI had absolutely no effect on the morals of fine, upstanding German citizens of course.

This just demonstrates it more, they needed a reason their society had fallen and were easy to look at the Jews as a scape goat.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:37:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.

Right, there are facts about humans being and facts about health. However, those are positive statements. My claim is that normative statements have no truth value without an assumed normative axiom.

You're making a common mistake. "Good" and "bad" is not the same as "well" and "unwell." We can measure health throw a series of indicators. The normative part is what to DO once we know the health of the subject. Do we help them? Do we leave them to rot? Is it good or bad that they are unhealthy?

Again, you have failed to provide an objective basis for morality.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:39:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:37:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.

Right, there are facts about humans being and facts about health. However, those are positive statements. My claim is that normative statements have no truth value without an assumed normative axiom.

You're making a common mistake. "Good" and "bad" is not the same as "well" and "unwell." We can measure health throw a series of indicators. The normative part is what to DO once we know the health of the subject. Do we help them? Do we leave them to rot? Is it good or bad that they are unhealthy?

Again, you have failed to provide an objective basis for morality.

Not really, well and unwell are no different then good and bad in this instance, just one refers to health and one refers to morality. You are making a huge mistake, conflating answers in reality vs answers we know.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:45:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:39:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:37:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.

Right, there are facts about humans being and facts about health. However, those are positive statements. My claim is that normative statements have no truth value without an assumed normative axiom.

You're making a common mistake. "Good" and "bad" is not the same as "well" and "unwell." We can measure health throw a series of indicators. The normative part is what to DO once we know the health of the subject. Do we help them? Do we leave them to rot? Is it good or bad that they are unhealthy?

Again, you have failed to provide an objective basis for morality.

Not really, well and unwell are no different then good and bad in this instance, just one refers to health and one refers to morality. You are making a huge mistake, conflating answers in reality vs answers we know.

So you equate the physical health of someone to a moral judgement about their character?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:47:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:45:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:39:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:37:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.

Right, there are facts about humans being and facts about health. However, those are positive statements. My claim is that normative statements have no truth value without an assumed normative axiom.

You're making a common mistake. "Good" and "bad" is not the same as "well" and "unwell." We can measure health throw a series of indicators. The normative part is what to DO once we know the health of the subject. Do we help them? Do we leave them to rot? Is it good or bad that they are unhealthy?

Again, you have failed to provide an objective basis for morality.

Not really, well and unwell are no different then good and bad in this instance, just one refers to health and one refers to morality. You are making a huge mistake, conflating answers in reality vs answers we know.

So you equate the physical health of someone to a moral judgement about their character?

both are judgements about well being so yes, as does Sam Harris in the book, The Moral Landscape, so if a nueroscientist and holder of a degree in philosophy has written a widely acclaimed book, I feel in pretty good company if I am wrong.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:48:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You guys just brought up a brilliant point.

Seems to me that if Objective Morality were to exist, then there must be some Objective standard that says "X" is "Normal" behavior.

DSM is currently working up a fifth edition debating what is normal?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:57:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:47:09 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:45:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:39:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:37:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.

Right, there are facts about humans being and facts about health. However, those are positive statements. My claim is that normative statements have no truth value without an assumed normative axiom.

You're making a common mistake. "Good" and "bad" is not the same as "well" and "unwell." We can measure health throw a series of indicators. The normative part is what to DO once we know the health of the subject. Do we help them? Do we leave them to rot? Is it good or bad that they are unhealthy?

Again, you have failed to provide an objective basis for morality.

Not really, well and unwell are no different then good and bad in this instance, just one refers to health and one refers to morality. You are making a huge mistake, conflating answers in reality vs answers we know.

So you equate the physical health of someone to a moral judgement about their character?

both are judgements about well being so yes, as does Sam Harris in the book, The Moral Landscape, so if a nueroscientist and holder of a degree in philosophy has written a widely acclaimed book, I feel in pretty good company if I am wrong.

"Clearly, people can adopt a form of life that needlessly undermines their phsical health--as the average lifespan in many primitiv societies is scarcely a third of what it has been in the the developed world world since the middle of the twentieth century. Why isn't it equally obvious that an ignorant and isolated people might undermine their own psychological well-being or that their social institutions could become engines of pointless cruelty,despair, and superstition? Why is it even slightly controversial to imagine that some tribe or society could harbor beliefs about reality that are not only false but demonstrably false?"-Sam Harris The moral landscape pg 21.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:02:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:57:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:47:09 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:45:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:39:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:37:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.

Right, there are facts about humans being and facts about health. However, those are positive statements. My claim is that normative statements have no truth value without an assumed normative axiom.

You're making a common mistake. "Good" and "bad" is not the same as "well" and "unwell." We can measure health throw a series of indicators. The normative part is what to DO once we know the health of the subject. Do we help them? Do we leave them to rot? Is it good or bad that they are unhealthy?

Again, you have failed to provide an objective basis for morality.

Not really, well and unwell are no different then good and bad in this instance, just one refers to health and one refers to morality. You are making a huge mistake, conflating answers in reality vs answers we know.

So you equate the physical health of someone to a moral judgement about their character?

both are judgements about well being so yes, as does Sam Harris in the book, The Moral Landscape, so if a nueroscientist and holder of a degree in philosophy has written a widely acclaimed book, I feel in pretty good company if I am wrong.

"Clearly, people can adopt a form of life that needlessly undermines their phsical health--as the average lifespan in many primitiv societies is scarcely a third of what it has been in the the developed world world since the middle of the twentieth century. Why isn't it equally obvious that an ignorant and isolated people might undermine their own psychological well-being or that their social institutions could become engines of pointless cruelty,despair, and superstition? Why is it even slightly controversial to imagine that some tribe or society could harbor beliefs about reality that are not only false but demonstrably false?"-Sam Harris The moral landscape pg 21.

"It seems to me,however, that the concept of well-being is like the concept of physical health: it resists precise definition, and yet is indispensable" Harris The moral landscape pg 11-12

"if we define "good" as that which supports well-being,as I will argue we must..."

Harris The moral landscape page 12.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:05:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just curious, are you guys arguing with Izbo because its entertaining, or do you really expect him to listen to you? To the former I say "carry on," to the latter "I'm surprised you haven't learned your lessen yet."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:05:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:02:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:57:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:47:09 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:45:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:39:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:37:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:30:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:18:58 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
All you've claimed is that most major moral systems are really based on societal benefits. How do you get from that observation to societal benefits actually being objectively moral?

Once we demonstrate that what we call morality actual is benefit to human well being or society, it becomes clear that there are certain objective moral facts we can determine. All you need to do is accept that there are certain things called the good life and the bad life. If you accept that this 1st example is less desired then the 2nd you will see the argument.

1) You live in a world where your wife and daughter have just been raped by cerebral(he wouldn't find this morally wrong in any real way, so no reason for him not to do it) and then forced to listen to him attempt logic for over 12 hours. Your house has just been foreclosed on and your ex wife has the mafia after you to kill you.

2) You are happily married and live in a home that adequately suits your needs. You have many close friends. You have 3 children all straight A students.


As long as we accept that 2 is a better option then b, in the same way we accept i would rather be healthy without cancer, then unhealthy and have cancer, we can say that there are right and wrong ways to get more people to option 2. We can say there are objective things about the measure of human well being.

See, that little bit there is why you fail to create an objective account for morality.

If something happens to me that I personally find disgusting, that does not mean I have discovered an objective morality. It means I have a subjective emotional reaction. Humans are hardwired (except sociopaths) to have emotional and even physiological reactions to "moral situations" that invoke certain basic principles (like direct causation of harm and mirror neuron linking). That only proves human behave as though an objective morality exists.

I absolutely agree that humans behave as if some objective morality exists. Doesn't mean it does.

All you have said is that "Under a moral system where x is "bad" and y is "good" we can deduce moral answers to choices." You haven't shown an objective morality exists, you've just proposed a subjective system.

I have actually shown a direct link to human well being and what we call morality, there are facts about human well being the same way there are facts about health. YOu don't sit there pissing and moaning like an idiot when somebody says it is fact that a person with lung cancer is less healthy, then a person whose only health problem is occasional migraine headaches. Yet, you can not define health in any other sense then better life based on medical conditions.

Right, there are facts about humans being and facts about health. However, those are positive statements. My claim is that normative statements have no truth value without an assumed normative axiom.

You're making a common mistake. "Good" and "bad" is not the same as "well" and "unwell." We can measure health throw a series of indicators. The normative part is what to DO once we know the health of the subject. Do we help them? Do we leave them to rot? Is it good or bad that they are unhealthy?

Again, you have failed to provide an objective basis for morality.

Not really, well and unwell are no different then good and bad in this instance, just one refers to health and one refers to morality. You are making a huge mistake, conflating answers in reality vs answers we know.

So you equate the physical health of someone to a moral judgement about their character?

both are judgements about well being so yes, as does Sam Harris in the book, The Moral Landscape, so if a nueroscientist and holder of a degree in philosophy has written a widely acclaimed book, I feel in pretty good company if I am wrong.

"Clearly, people can adopt a form of life that needlessly undermines their phsical health--as the average lifespan in many primitiv societies is scarcely a third of what it has been in the the developed world world since the middle of the twentieth century. Why isn't it equally obvious that an ignorant and isolated people might undermine their own psychological well-being or that their social institutions could become engines of pointless cruelty,despair, and superstition? Why is it even slightly controversial to imagine that some tribe or society could harbor beliefs about reality that are not only false but demonstrably false?"-Sam Harris The moral landscape pg 21.

"It seems to me,however, that the concept of well-being is like the concept of physical health: it resists precise definition, and yet is indispensable" Harris The moral landscape pg 11-12

"if we define "good" as that which supports well-being,as I will argue we must..."

Harris The moral landscape page 12.

we can also see that a great deal of people see this comparison when they use the saying"... is a cancer to society"
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:10:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:05:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
Just curious, are you guys arguing with Izbo because its entertaining, or do you really expect him to listen to you? To the former I say "carry on," to the latter "I'm surprised you haven't learned your lessen yet."

I am just browsing as usual.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:12:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:10:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/16/2011 11:05:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
Just curious, are you guys arguing with Izbo because its entertaining, or do you really expect him to listen to you? To the former I say "carry on," to the latter "I'm surprised you haven't learned your lessen yet."

I am just browsing as usual.

Funny you don't listen to me to find out if you are wrong, strange my argument contains merit and argumentation. You people are a bunch of pseudo philosophers without the brains to realize thats all you are.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:15:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:12:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 11:10:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/16/2011 11:05:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
Just curious, are you guys arguing with Izbo because its entertaining, or do you really expect him to listen to you? To the former I say "carry on," to the latter "I'm surprised you haven't learned your lessen yet."

I am just browsing as usual.

Funny you don't listen to me to find out if you are wrong, strange my argument contains merit and argumentation. You people are a bunch of pseudo philosophers without the brains to realize thats all you are.

So what are your thoughts on the DSM fifth edition?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:23:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:22:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Oh you can't find anything to cut and paste? It's ok, I can wait.

I have not read it, nor did i really intend to, honestly.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:24:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:22:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Oh you can't find anything to cut and paste? It's ok, I can wait.

nor have you and nor are you qualified to comment on it, and from the sounds of it, I would be merely speculating about it myself.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:25:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:23:10 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 11:22:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Oh you can't find anything to cut and paste? It's ok, I can wait.

I have not read it, nor did i really intend to, honestly.

Do you know what DSM at least stands for?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:28:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:22:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Oh you can't find anything to cut and paste? It's ok, I can wait.

by the way jackass why don't you enlighten us, instead of expecting me to be omniscient. That seems to be the ridiculous standard you f'n idiots hold people you don't like to on this site. It shows a lack of intelligence to expect me to know this, reference, as I can not, nor should be expected to know everything, I have said I argue on the best of my knowledge, to reasonable certainty. If you could present something from this DSM 5th edition that would change my mind, otherwise stfu, as it was a blatantly bad attempt to reference something to make yourself look intelligence without the actual ability to go back and use it to justify yourself.

If you are saying that there has to be axiom of normal for there to be morals, that is about as retarded as saying there has to be an axiom on health to accept there are health facts. To accept there is an objective difference between food and poison.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:30:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 11:26:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Feel free to objectively speculate on what DSM stands for (the publication).

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Now feel free to actually contribute something of half intelligence(setting the bar high here) to this conversation. Having stumbled upon a journal such as this and referencing it in no way shows you are functionally capable of understanding their findings.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.