Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Morality doesn't exist

EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 4:53:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Do we need god to say "that's red"? How is objectively identifying what causes unnecessary harm or suffering any different?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 5:04:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 4:53:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Do we need god to say "that's red"?

You're talking about the physical world now (or at least the perception of it). Morality is meta-physical, and thus cannot be tested for in the same way that "red" could be tested for.

How is objectively identifying what causes unnecessary harm or suffering any different?

I don't agree with the presumptions in this comment. What exactly counts as "unnecessary" harm?

Suffering is also a fairly nebulous term, one that's metaphysical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's etymology belongs in Buddhist theology.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 5:34:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 5:04:14 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 4:53:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Do we need god to say "that's red"?

You're talking about the physical world now (or at least the perception of it). Morality is meta-physical, and thus cannot be tested for in the same way that "red" could be tested for.

Well, I may be totally off base, but "red" does not actually exist without human perception. The same can be said for morality.

How is objectively identifying what causes unnecessary harm or suffering any different?

I don't agree with the presumptions in this comment. What exactly counts as "unnecessary" harm?

Sometimes, avoiding harm altogether may not be possible. (e. g. the trolley problem)

Suffering is also a fairly nebulous term, one that's metaphysical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's etymology belongs in Buddhist theology.

Lol, perhaps, but I'm not a Buddhist. In context, I view suffering as 'extended harm'. That being said, 'harm' alone is probably sufficient for this discussion.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 5:47:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 5:34:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 5:04:14 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 4:53:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Do we need god to say "that's red"?

You're talking about the physical world now (or at least the perception of it). Morality is meta-physical, and thus cannot be tested for in the same way that "red" could be tested for.

Well, I may be totally off base, but "red" does not actually exist without human perception. The same can be said for morality.

I don't think so. Whilst the specific attribution of "red" may not exist in reality, there is something which generates "red" *independent* of whether we can see it. In other words, there is something which exists that generates "red" when we perceive it -- that is physical.

Morality, on the other hand, is an attribution to something which cannot be seen (i.e. "red").

I don't understand how you think the things which generates "red" is anything but physical.


How is objectively identifying what causes unnecessary harm or suffering any different?

I don't agree with the presumptions in this comment. What exactly counts as "unnecessary" harm?

Sometimes, avoiding harm altogether may not be possible. (e. g. the trolley problem)

Okay, but "necessary" and "unnecessary" assume a purpose, do they not? If they do, then what purpose is there, in absence of objective truth, in avoiding "harm?" Also, what exactly do you mean by "harm?"


Suffering is also a fairly nebulous term, one that's metaphysical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's etymology belongs in Buddhist theology.

Lol, perhaps, but I'm not a Buddhist. In context, I view suffering as 'extended harm'. That being said, 'harm' alone is probably sufficient for this discussion.

Fair enough.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 12:56:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 5:47:58 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 5:34:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 5:04:14 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 4:53:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Do we need god to say "that's red"?

You're talking about the physical world now (or at least the perception of it). Morality is meta-physical, and thus cannot be tested for in the same way that "red" could be tested for.

Well, I may be totally off base, but "red" does not actually exist without human perception. The same can be said for morality.

I don't think so. Whilst the specific attribution of "red" may not exist in reality, there is something which generates "red" *independent* of whether we can see it. In other words, there is something which exists that generates "red" when we perceive it -- that is physical.

Sure, the frequency of light that we call "red" will still exist, but the concept of "red" cannot exist in a vacuum.

Morality, on the other hand, is an attribution to something which cannot be seen (i.e. "red").

I don't understand how you think the things which generates "red" is anything but physical.

See above.


How is objectively identifying what causes unnecessary harm or suffering any different?

I don't agree with the presumptions in this comment. What exactly counts as "unnecessary" harm?

Sometimes, avoiding harm altogether may not be possible. (e. g. the trolley problem)

Okay, but "necessary" and "unnecessary" assume a purpose, do they not? If they do, then what purpose is there, in absence of objective truth, in avoiding "harm?" Also, what exactly do you mean by "harm?"

Sure, human morality has a purpose. Preserving life, increasing happiness, etc. - all are human derived purposes. Objective truth is something that is true regardless of our opinions, but it is still a concept dependent of human minds. By harm I mean "injury to mind/body due to careless (or intentional) actions."


Suffering is also a fairly nebulous term, one that's metaphysical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's etymology belongs in Buddhist theology.

Lol, perhaps, but I'm not a Buddhist. In context, I view suffering as 'extended harm'. That being said, 'harm' alone is probably sufficient for this discussion.

Fair enough.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:48:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 12:56:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 5:47:58 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 5:34:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 5:04:14 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 4:53:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Do we need god to say "that's red"?

You're talking about the physical world now (or at least the perception of it). Morality is meta-physical, and thus cannot be tested for in the same way that "red" could be tested for.

Well, I may be totally off base, but "red" does not actually exist without human perception. The same can be said for morality.

I don't think so. Whilst the specific attribution of "red" may not exist in reality, there is something which generates "red" *independent* of whether we can see it. In other words, there is something which exists that generates "red" when we perceive it -- that is physical.

Sure, the frequency of light that we call "red" will still exist, but the concept of "red" cannot exist in a vacuum.

Yeah so the meta-physical concept of "red" doesn't exist without our perception, but the physical frequency does -- I agree.


Morality, on the other hand, is an attribution to something which cannot be seen (i.e. "red").

I don't understand how you think the things which generates "red" is anything but physical.

See above.


How is objectively identifying what causes unnecessary harm or suffering any different?

I don't agree with the presumptions in this comment. What exactly counts as "unnecessary" harm?

Sometimes, avoiding harm altogether may not be possible. (e. g. the trolley problem)

Okay, but "necessary" and "unnecessary" assume a purpose, do they not? If they do, then what purpose is there, in absence of objective truth, in avoiding "harm?" Also, what exactly do you mean by "harm?"

Sure, human morality has a purpose. Preserving life, increasing happiness, etc. - all are human derived purposes.

Yes, all human derived purposes, hence "morality doesn't exist" -- it's just a lie we tell ourselves so that we can "preserve life, increase happiness etc.". At their core, without this good-feeling notion of morality, humans are self-interested, nasty creatures. It's only with this notion that there is some kind of "morality" which binds everyone so that they think they are controlled by it.

Objective truth is something that is true regardless of our opinions, but it is still a concept dependent of human minds.

Meaning is human constructed?

By harm I mean "injury to mind/body due to careless (or intentional) actions."

Alright, but this too is a metaphysical concept (and I'd argue that it doesn't exist in reality).



Suffering is also a fairly nebulous term, one that's metaphysical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's etymology belongs in Buddhist theology.

Lol, perhaps, but I'm not a Buddhist. In context, I view suffering as 'extended harm'. That being said, 'harm' alone is probably sufficient for this discussion.

Fair enough.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:17:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

The question is, what does it mean to say that morality exists?

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Atheists can certainly provide a logical framework, but logic is only as good as the premises it is built on. Atheists typically use the reduction of harm and suffering as the standard, theists typically use their interpretation of God's word as the standard. Logic can only be used from the point where the standard is chosen, it does not determine what the standard is.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:23:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:17:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

The question is, what does it mean to say that morality exists?

From what I understand, it means to say that evolution instilled feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways.


When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Atheists can certainly provide a logical framework, but logic is only as good as the premises it is built on.

I'm not convinced that they can provide logical framework. How do you justify it yourself?

Atheists typically use the reduction of harm and suffering as the standard, theists typically use their interpretation of God's word as the standard. Logic can only be used from the point where the standard is chosen, it does not determine what the standard is.

Agreed.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:30:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:23:15 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:17:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

The question is, what does it mean to say that morality exists?

From what I understand, it means to say that evolution instilled feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways.

Is your definition necessarily tied to evolution, or do you just not agree that we have feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways?

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Atheists can certainly provide a logical framework, but logic is only as good as the premises it is built on.

I'm not convinced that they can provide logical framework. How do you justify it yourself?

P1: Actions which unnecessarily cause pain and suffering are immoral
P2: Action X unnecessarily causes pain and suffering
C: Action X is immoral

Atheists typically use the reduction of harm and suffering as the standard, theists typically use their interpretation of God's word as the standard. Logic can only be used from the point where the standard is chosen, it does not determine what the standard is.

Agreed.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:31:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:30:11 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:23:15 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:17:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

The question is, what does it mean to say that morality exists?

From what I understand, it means to say that evolution instilled feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways.

Is your definition necessarily tied to evolution, or do you just not agree that we have feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways?

It's tied to evolution in that it has evolutionary roots.


When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Atheists can certainly provide a logical framework, but logic is only as good as the premises it is built on.

I'm not convinced that they can provide logical framework. How do you justify it yourself?

P1: Actions which unnecessarily cause pain and suffering are immoral

Why?

P2: Action X unnecessarily causes pain and suffering
C: Action X is immoral

Atheists typically use the reduction of harm and suffering as the standard, theists typically use their interpretation of God's word as the standard. Logic can only be used from the point where the standard is chosen, it does not determine what the standard is.

Agreed.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:38:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:31:43 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:30:11 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:23:15 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:17:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

The question is, what does it mean to say that morality exists?

From what I understand, it means to say that evolution instilled feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways.

Is your definition necessarily tied to evolution, or do you just not agree that we have feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways?

It's tied to evolution in that it has evolutionary roots.

I'm confused, are you explaining what it means for morality to exist, or telling me why you would say morality exists?

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Atheists can certainly provide a logical framework, but logic is only as good as the premises it is built on.

I'm not convinced that they can provide logical framework. How do you justify it yourself?

P1: Actions which unnecessarily cause pain and suffering are immoral

Why?

That was my point. You asked me to provide a logical framework, I can only do so once the premises are in place. Logic does not dictate the premises, it only takes us from the premises to the conclusion.

If you'd like to know why I begin with this premise, quite simply, because this is the world I want to live in. As long as the vast majority agree with that then we can have discussions and make progress on how we get the world closer to this goal. If people don't agree that they want to live in this world then we have problems, which has been the case throughout much of human history.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:44:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

We are humans! Morality exists. Jeez, i am getting sick of this morality question. I get how it can become confusing... but, we feel. That is a fact. If i am ripping someone's eyes out, their screams will ring through my body. If this person hadn't done anything wrong, but i just didn't like his/her face and wanted to rip their eyes out... i couldn't! Why? Because i can feel. Now, of course there are people that don't have the right wiring... but they are few. And maybe, if we concentrate on better ourselves, we may find cures to everything - even insanity. Whatever... bottom line is, morality is real and is quite easy to understand the basics ... just try. Start with the feeling of ripping your eyes out - would you like it?
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:44:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:38:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:31:43 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:30:11 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:23:15 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:17:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

The question is, what does it mean to say that morality exists?

From what I understand, it means to say that evolution instilled feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways.

Is your definition necessarily tied to evolution, or do you just not agree that we have feelings within us that make us think we have to behave certain ways?

It's tied to evolution in that it has evolutionary roots.

I'm confused, are you explaining what it means for morality to exist, or telling me why you would say morality exists?

The latter. People attribute "morality" to evolution-instilled proclivities which do not align with their conception of morality.


When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Atheists can certainly provide a logical framework, but logic is only as good as the premises it is built on.

I'm not convinced that they can provide logical framework. How do you justify it yourself?

P1: Actions which unnecessarily cause pain and suffering are immoral

Why?

That was my point. You asked me to provide a logical framework, I can only do so once the premises are in place. Logic does not dictate the premises, it only takes us from the premises to the conclusion.

This isn't logically sound; it's only logically valid.


If you'd like to know why I begin with this premise, quite simply, because this is the world I want to live in.

It begs the question -- you're proving morality exists by assuming it exists ("are immoral").

As long as the vast majority agree with that then we can have discussions and make progress on how we get the world closer to this goal.

Dude, come on. This is a textbook appeal to popularity. I'm not asking for what humanity would like, I am asking you to logically justify the existence of morality.

If people don't agree that they want to live in this world then we have problems, which has been the case throughout much of human history.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:47:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:44:16 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

We are humans! Morality exists.

Useless statements.

Jeez, i am getting sick of this morality question. I get how it can become confusing... but, we feel. That is a fact. If i am ripping someone's eyes out, their screams will ring through my body. If this person hadn't done anything wrong, but i just didn't like his/her face and wanted to rip their eyes out... i couldn't! Why? Because i can feel. Now, of course there are people that don't have the right wiring... but they are few. And maybe, if we concentrate on better ourselves, we may find cures to everything - even insanity. Whatever... bottom line is, morality is real and is quite easy to understand the basics ... just try. Start with the feeling of ripping your eyes out - would you like it?

tl;dr version: 'My feelings give me license to make things up and say that they exist'.

Please don't bother responding. I don't have time for trash-posting.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:53:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:47:34 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:44:16 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

We are humans! Morality exists.

Useless statements.

Jeez, i am getting sick of this morality question. I get how it can become confusing... but, we feel. That is a fact. If i am ripping someone's eyes out, their screams will ring through my body. If this person hadn't done anything wrong, but i just didn't like his/her face and wanted to rip their eyes out... i couldn't! Why? Because i can feel. Now, of course there are people that don't have the right wiring... but they are few. And maybe, if we concentrate on better ourselves, we may find cures to everything - even insanity. Whatever... bottom line is, morality is real and is quite easy to understand the basics ... just try. Start with the feeling of ripping your eyes out - would you like it?

tl;dr version: 'My feelings give me license to make things up and say that they exist'.

Please don't bother responding. I don't have time for trash-posting.

Wow, you are so confident. "I am just going to squash what he said bc i am so smart" ... get a life.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).

So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence. Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:00:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence. Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Naw man... we can't talk to her - she will just find a way to say "fallacy" bc she is a genius.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:07:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:00:05 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence. Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Naw man... we can't talk to her - she will just find a way to say "fallacy" bc she is a genius.

This place is not for people who want to behave like a spastic. Go and make condescending comments somewhere else.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:10:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Mmm close. I agree with the self-perservation, but empathy doesn't exist to the ends of making people feel good (same applies to morality). Rather, it exists so that we can understand people and how they function, *so* that we can fix them and get them working for the tribe/society again.


Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence.

It "exists" purely in abstraction; it doesn't manifest in the real world. Hence "in the *sense* that we know it".

Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

The true purpose of empathy doesn't allow for this to be the conclusion. I am willing to reword and explain further, if need be.


When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:16:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:07:51 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:00:05 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence. Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Naw man... we can't talk to her - she will just find a way to say "fallacy" bc she is a genius.

This place is not for people who want to behave like a spastic. Go and make condescending comments somewhere else.

I made valid comments... you are the one acting like a child. I was prepared for a discussion, however, you would rather be-little me rather then engage. What? You shush everyone that seems like they don't steer in your direction or capacity? I'm sure your brilliant mind can find a fallacy in there somewhere.

Humans make morality true... prove me wrong. Without our sentience ... yeah, it doesn't exist. Do we exist? Who knows ... i know, however, it hurts me inside to hurt my cat ... right, wrong, morality. How are you defining it? In its most basic form, in its most basic definition - it exists. You are the one saying it doesn't ... prove me wrong! That is all i ask. You might even be smarter than me... but how am i suppose to know when you call me a trash talker and "don't respond." You don't know me... get off your high horse b.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:16:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:10:39 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Mmm close. I agree with the self-perservation, but empathy doesn't exist to the ends of making people feel good (same applies to morality).

This might be true, but a particular feeling of "good" is not what I was needing for you to agree to. Empathy encompasses a lot of things, ranging from (as you suggested) feeling good about something to understanding what a papercut feels like, to having even further pain dispensed upon me, and knowing that because indeed that hurts, it probably hurts other people, and rules that prevent such pain from occurring to others and to me is what then makes for a "good" thing.

Rather, it exists so that we can understand people and how they function, *so* that we can fix them and get them working for the tribe/society again.


Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence.

It "exists" purely in abstraction; it doesn't manifest in the real world. Hence "in the *sense* that we know it".

Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

The true purpose of empathy doesn't allow for this to be the conclusion. I am willing to reword and explain further, if need be.

I wasn't aware of a "true purpose" for empathy. To me, empathy is defining how well you can relate to some one else's mindset. I think you indeed might need to flesh out your posit it a bit.


When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:25:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:16:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:10:39 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Mmm close. I agree with the self-perservation, but empathy doesn't exist to the ends of making people feel good (same applies to morality).

This might be true, but a particular feeling of "good" is not what I was needing for you to agree to. Empathy encompasses a lot of things, ranging from (as you suggested) feeling good about something to understanding what a papercut feels like, to having even further pain dispensed upon me, and knowing that because indeed that hurts, it probably hurts other people, and rules that prevent such pain from occurring to others and to me is what then makes for a "good" thing.

Okay. I agree.


Rather, it exists so that we can understand people and how they function, *so* that we can fix them and get them working for the tribe/society again.


Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence.

It "exists" purely in abstraction; it doesn't manifest in the real world. Hence "in the *sense* that we know it".

Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

The true purpose of empathy doesn't allow for this to be the conclusion. I am willing to reword and explain further, if need be.

I wasn't aware of a "true purpose" for empathy. To me, empathy is defining how well you can relate to some one else's mindset. I think you indeed might need to flesh out your posit it a bit.

Okay, think about why, in terms of evolution, would we develop a sense of empathy? How would that help us survive?



When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:29:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:16:01 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:07:51 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:00:05 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence. Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Naw man... we can't talk to her - she will just find a way to say "fallacy" bc she is a genius.

This place is not for people who want to behave like a spastic. Go and make condescending comments somewhere else.

Wah wah wah!!!

Hush little baby don't you cry...
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:33:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:29:02 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:16:01 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:07:51 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:00:05 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence. Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Naw man... we can't talk to her - she will just find a way to say "fallacy" bc she is a genius.

This place is not for people who want to behave like a spastic. Go and make condescending comments somewhere else.

Wah wah wah!!!

Hush little baby don't you cry...

Okay... now you are going into your fairy tale fantasy of how i feel. Have you ever tried reading tarot ... i think you might think you are good at it... hey, it is one way to make money. But, in reality... i think you are the one that cries. I think you are the one that sits in the corner wishing there is a god (or cursing at one for creating you the way you are). I think you are the one that stays up at night crying why me... pathetic. You know in my belief i think KYS is a viable rage quit. I mean, you just re-set. Maybe next time you can be something worth while...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:36:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:25:26 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:16:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:10:39 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Mmm close. I agree with the self-perservation, but empathy doesn't exist to the ends of making people feel good (same applies to morality).

This might be true, but a particular feeling of "good" is not what I was needing for you to agree to. Empathy encompasses a lot of things, ranging from (as you suggested) feeling good about something to understanding what a papercut feels like, to having even further pain dispensed upon me, and knowing that because indeed that hurts, it probably hurts other people, and rules that prevent such pain from occurring to others and to me is what then makes for a "good" thing.

Okay. I agree.


Rather, it exists so that we can understand people and how they function, *so* that we can fix them and get them working for the tribe/society again.


Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence.

It "exists" purely in abstraction; it doesn't manifest in the real world. Hence "in the *sense* that we know it".

Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

The true purpose of empathy doesn't allow for this to be the conclusion. I am willing to reword and explain further, if need be.

I wasn't aware of a "true purpose" for empathy. To me, empathy is defining how well you can relate to some one else's mindset. I think you indeed might need to flesh out your posit it a bit.

Okay, think about why, in terms of evolution, would we develop a sense of empathy? How would that help us survive?

I think this is best summed up in a Chinese proverb: the fool will learn from his mistakes, but the wise man will learn from the fool's mistakes.

In short, if I see some one doing something dangerous, I would apply that lesson to me; I can appreciate the consequences of their actions and learn from it via the basic understanding of the pain they are in should they fail. This equally applies to success, too.



When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:37:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:33:32 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:29:02 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:16:01 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:07:51 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:00:05 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence. Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.

Naw man... we can't talk to her - she will just find a way to say "fallacy" bc she is a genius.

This place is not for people who want to behave like a spastic. Go and make condescending comments somewhere else.

Wah wah wah!!!

Hush little baby don't you cry...

Okay... now you are going into your fairy tale fantasy of how i feel. Have you ever tried reading tarot ... i think you might think you are good at it... hey, it is one way to make money. But, in reality... i think you are the one that cries. I think you are the one that sits in the corner wishing there is a god (or cursing at one for creating you the way you are).

What if I do? I think that a world full of Christians would be far better than a world full of Atheists.

Go on, I'll give you one last chance: why should I prefer a brutal truth to a pleasant lie?

I think you are the one that stays up at night crying why me... pathetic. You know in my belief i think KYS is a viable rage quit. I mean, you just re-set. Maybe next time you can be something worth while...
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:38:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:36:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:25:26 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:16:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:10:39 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:56:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists.

Surely, you realize 'empathy' exists, correct? As well as a desire for self preservation. These are pretty objectively verifiable concepts. The degree to which the occur is varying, sure, but they do exist.

Mmm close. I agree with the self-perservation, but empathy doesn't exist to the ends of making people feel good (same applies to morality).

This might be true, but a particular feeling of "good" is not what I was needing for you to agree to. Empathy encompasses a lot of things, ranging from (as you suggested) feeling good about something to understanding what a papercut feels like, to having even further pain dispensed upon me, and knowing that because indeed that hurts, it probably hurts other people, and rules that prevent such pain from occurring to others and to me is what then makes for a "good" thing.

Okay. I agree.


Rather, it exists so that we can understand people and how they function, *so* that we can fix them and get them working for the tribe/society again.


Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe).


So it does exist, then. I am confused as to how you can lead off with that it doesn't if you have already nailed down a perfectly justifiable reason for its existence.

It "exists" purely in abstraction; it doesn't manifest in the real world. Hence "in the *sense* that we know it".

Couple that with the 2 concepts I listed above, and presto, your mind should be at ease.

The true purpose of empathy doesn't allow for this to be the conclusion. I am willing to reword and explain further, if need be.

I wasn't aware of a "true purpose" for empathy. To me, empathy is defining how well you can relate to some one else's mindset. I think you indeed might need to flesh out your posit it a bit.

Okay, think about why, in terms of evolution, would we develop a sense of empathy? How would that help us survive?

I think this is best summed up in a Chinese proverb: the fool will learn from his mistakes, but the wise man will learn from the fool's mistakes.

In short, if I see some one doing something dangerous, I would apply that lesson to me; I can appreciate the consequences of their actions and learn from it via the basic understanding of the pain they are in should they fail. This equally applies to success, too.

Okay, but I don't see how this proves the existence of morality.




When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality". Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:40:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet. : :

A good way to describe the morality that all humans can observe is to not throw rocks at another human being. If you do so, you can expect a rock to be thrown back at you one day.

No man can obey the Ten Commandments that religious hypocrites tell you to obey.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:42:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:40:36 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:53:46 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
In absence of a divine entity to enforce morality (so for religious people, let's think hypothetical), there's no reason I can think of to believe that morality exists. Morality, in the sense that we know it, is just a feeling which has been imbued into us through evolution so as to benefit the tribe *and* ourselves (since our ancestors were more likely to survive if they got along with the tribe). When Atheists say "that's just wrong", they don't provide logical framework or anything of the sort, even in elaboration. Rather, they, at best, provide evidence as to why we should follow this so called "morality".

Just a thought I had -- not sure if I agree with it yet. : :

A good way to describe the morality that all humans can observe is to not throw rocks at another human being. If you do so, you can expect a rock to be thrown back at you one day.

This isn't morality; this is retribution.


No man can obey the Ten Commandments that religious hypocrites tell you to obey.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...