Atheist Foundation of Morality and Moral Accountability

[Prolescum]

Your just doing what every theist apologist does, you project your own idea of what people who don't think like you are. Stop arguing with people in your imagination and talk to us.

This bears repeating.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Moral law is good. Without it would not have any sensible way to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice.

Define "good".

I trust this is different than something that makes us feel "good" - like eating cream cakes or chocolate? Which feeling is indistinguishable from doing something that makes us feel good - like helping someone.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[RedYellow]

I sense my conversation with Joseph has proceeded as far as it will go, so I'm just gonna lay out my idea of how morality in the real world works.

Firstly, we are hands down the most socially complex creatures on the planet, this isn't something we decided to be, it's just what we are. Our bodies can't help us survive like other animals can, so we must depend on each other. This is already enough to explain why we would need some kind of morality to even be where we currently are as a species.

Next, even if there were some kind of objective morality, it wouldn't make a difference in the way we choose our behaviors. There are always reasons behind why we accept moral arguments, even if you accept an objective moral, you do so because you have evaluated it as being worthy of the term, 'right.' If this were not the case, then morality for you simply becomes a binary set of rules, and those rules could be anything at all.

Third, reasoning gives us the best morals we could hope for. You say we have morality written on our hearts, but if that's so, then why did it take us so long to figure out slavery was wrong? We had to learn that, we had to reach a level of social awareness to get there, and it really only just happened if you think about it. If morality is objective, then we shouldn't have to figure it out. Our knowledge of it should be equal to our accountability to it.

Morality isn't objective or subjective, it's both. It's a language of behavior, and in a language it's not just up to opinion what certain words mean, if you intend to communicate successfully with others.

 

[australopithecus]

Just to clarify my position on copypasta-gate. I was annoyed, but it didn't offend some innate moral code hard wired into my loins. When I debate someone, I want to debate them. Now, when Joseph decided to post someone else's work as his own, sans attribution, he basically, though probably unintentionally, treated everyone reading the thing like an idiot. All he needed to do was add quote marks or quote tags, or just say who he was quoting, but clearly he didn't think we'd notice the difference in writing styles, or the fact other people were familiar with who he was plagarising.

This has nothing to do with morality, I just don't like being treated like a mug by someone who, thus far, has displayed all the intellectual honesty of a cat trying to pretend it hasn't just done a shit in your bath (true story).

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I was in the process of writing a convoluted reply to your convoluted reply to my convoluted reply and decided it was too convoluted. If you want to assert absolute morality exists then fine, there are worst thing to assert, however it dawns that it's a side issue. The main show is the foundation of morality, now clearly you're asserting God as the foundation, so until you can demonstrate this is accurate we're going to remain at an impasse.

I am unconvinced that absolute morality exists, and this includes some very good arguments for seemingly objective morals based on evolutionary theory, so if you're going to invoke God you'll have to work very hard to make a decent case for it.

I would love to hear these seemingly good arguments for the foundation of morality if you dont mind? Enlighten me

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Re: Atheist Foundation of Morality and Moral Accountability
Josephhasfun01 wrote:A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior with value. That is, they confuse what "is" with what "ought" to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they "ought" to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. Sociology is descriptive; morality is prescriptive.

Plagiarism? Really? And you purport to be in a position to fucking lecture us on morality?

Lecture?. You are failing to recognize that I in no way posit to be morally superior to anyone. That is not what this is about. It is about where morality comes from. Moral law is written on our hearts. It is embedded within us. I like how you made a fuss about my “plagiarizing” someone else’s work. You demonstrated that objective morality exists by getting offended. Thank you.

The age of consent varies from state to state in America from sixteen to eighteen. But that is neither here nor there. Throughout history and still today there is much debate about the age of sexual consent. What people do is subject to change. But what they ought to do is not subject to change. In other words just because slavery was abolished does not mean that it was ok before it was abolished.

You're suggesting (or Turek is, fuckwit that he is) that there even is such thing as an 'ought'. Can you actually demonstrate that? By what metric do you determine what 'ought' to be?

You ought not to rape your mother. You ought to have respect for her. That should be an adequate demonstration of “ought“. It does not use the metric system so I hope it’s still valid.

In order to be objective about the age of consent in regards to sexual conduct. We must first look at what the fuss is all about. You take the various opinions on the age for sexual consent to mean that there is no objective moral value applicable to this particular topic. But you’d be incorrect in assuming this to be the case.

Actually, the opinions are irrelevant, and only demonstrate yet another instance of digital thinking. Maturity is correlated with age, but it isn't determined by age, for the simple reason that humans mature at different rates. The reason for defining a particular age is simply that we're talking about legislation, which can only function where things are clearly defined, or there can be no justice.

You are leaving out an important factor on how come we legislate laws. We do it to protect people and to prosecute those who a misplaced sense of value. Moral law enables us to be able to detect injustice and justice. That how we can legislate laws.

Legislation is not morality, however, it's rules.

The reason why it is important to make laws about this sorta thing is for a couple of reasons. 1) older people can take advantage of younger impressionable people. The younger the person is the more likely that they can be swayed. Not to say that it can work the other way around too. Don’t get me wrong. But what is objective in this moral situation is the fact that older men and women have a particular advantage over people of a younger age.

Bollocks. Age has fuck all to do with it, from a moral perspective. In reality, younger people have distinct advantages over older people in some respects.

Unfortunately this discussion is not about some respects. It’s about why we make rules about the age of sexual consent.

Therefore it is considered to “rob-the-cradle“, so to speak. [Hypothetically] You live where no laws have been made concerning the age of sexual consent. If you had your thirteen-year-old daughter bring home a young man that was nineteen years of age I would think that you would NOT concur with her decision.

Certainly not, but anecdotes do not objective principles make. Pointing to how people do behave as an attempt to support the objectivity of something is fallacious. Now who's confusing 'is' and 'ought'?

What people do is subject to change. It is not fallacious to point out that we used to practice slavery and now we don’t. The more knowledge people attain about what should be done and why, the more people change their views on things. Take a person that supports abortion and put them back in the womb and then ask them what they think about abortion!

In fact I think that most rational parents would produce a shotgun immediately!

Utter fucking horseshit. I certainly wouldn't reach for a gun in any circumstances other than immediately life-threatening ones. I most certainly wouldn't reach for a gun when confronted with a child, regardless of his intentions toward my daughter. In any event, this example has nothing to do with morality.

I know. You’re a coward! You would pussy out when push comes to shove to protect your daughter for a predator. You would probably say: “the responsible parent would buy him some condoms so that when he has sexual intercourse with her she would not get pregnant and I would not have to support another person.”

Now lets flip it and say your nineteen year old son brings a thirteen year old girl home. You might not produce a shotgun in this case but you might want to have a serious talk with your son!-have you lost your mind? is how I might start the conversation.

For me, the conversation would be the same in both cases, not least because guns and violence are for fuckwits. I prefer reasoned discussion.

Reasoned discussion with hormone driven adolescence? Are you from planet earth? Who are they gonna listen to? You? Or there hormone driven desires?

No matter what your reaction would be in either case you know that there is a moral responsibility that SHOULD be upheld.

Wrong. Parental responsibilities are not moral responsibilities. Yet another false conflation, coupled with a fatuous bad analogy.

So parents have no moral responsibility to raise their kids up to be able to live under authority? Maybe that’s what’s wrong with society today! Don’t you care about kids being raised to obey rules?

If not then I question your ability to be a good father, mother or parents.

You can question what the fuck you like. I certainly question your ability to be a good parent, if your first instinct is to reach for a gun when confronted with a child. In fact, I venture that you should never be allowed near children, and I certainly question your purported understanding of what constitutes fucking morality in light of the above.

You seem hell bent on trying to discredit me. I don’t even own a gun. It was a hypothetical. Your ranting does nothing but make you look very unstable and silly. I was merely posing a reaction in the case of extreme offense. If a young man of the age of nineteen was trying to ’get with’ my daughter sexually, I would scare him away one way or another. You can try to play the devils advocate by saying “ I prefer reasoned discussion”. But if I had a thirteen year old daughter that was being pursued by a nineteen year old man I would aim a gun at his head(if I had one) and tell him that if I ever see him with my daughter again I would not hesitate to pull the trigger. You can try to play the morally superior and say that you’d reason with him but that is probably not the typical reaction by most father’s who regard their princess’s virginity as something sacred or merely be educated enough to know about STD‘s and the overian or cervical cancers that can arise from ‘early on’ sexual intercourse. Hormone crazy adolescence’s don’t care about reason Hackenslash. There are people who are selfish, just like there are people who don’t care. If your daughter did not see what was wrong with having sex at an early age and wanted to do it so she could be accepted by the popular kids at school, would you just say: “ok honey, it’s your body, do what you want, it’s not my place to interject?”

So just because the age of consent varies from place to place does not mean that we do not hold objectivity to the age of sexual consent.

The age of consent isn't a moral determination, it's purpose is to serve as a line in the sand, in an effort to makes rules as objective as possible. This has bugger all to do with morality.

Objective rules are derived from objective morals.

You have to have somewhat of an idea of what a straight line looks like in order to know what entails a crooked line.

Do you have any new fucked-up analogies? You already used this fuckwittery before, and it was bollocks then as well.

Sure! You have to have an idea about what is right in order to be able to say something is wrong and vice versa. You can’t know that 8 is the wrong answer to 3+2 unless you know what the right answer is. It’s 5 BTW.

Even though there is no law about the age of consent you still know what OUGHT to be done regardless of a law or not.

Really? You should talk to Islamic states about this. Indeed, since the prophet of that religion himself engaged in paedophilia, engaging in the practice of 'thighing' when Aisha was only 6 years old, and consummating the marriage when she was 9. Where is your fucking 'ought' now?

It’s still there. You think because there are people who do what ought to be done that it means that there is no objective. If you had an objective to reach the top of a mountain and others said that they could not do it, does that mean that you should not even try?

The fact that there are laws in place proves there is objectivity, regardless if it be 16 or 18.

Objective rules, yes, although only objective in a very narrow sense, namely the sense that they are the same for all people living under those rules. The problem is, of course, that rules are still not morality. Indeed, the very fact that we have laws at all is an argument against the existence of objective morality, because if there really were such a thing, we wouldn't actually need rules.

Wrong. We still need rules regardless of objective moral law because there are people that know what should not be done but disregard it because in order to please themselves and their immoral desires.

Why do cannibals perform elaborate expiatory rituals before they take the life of a victim? They would not perform these rituals unless they thought there was something wrong with what they were about to do.

Absolute drivel, and yet another topic you clearly know sweet fuck all about. Why do christians perform elaborate rituals before partaking of the sacrament? Is that because they realise that there's something wrong with it?

Not even close to relevant.

Cultural differences do not reflect the essential core moral values.
The basics are clear, even if some difficult problems are not. Moreover, the fact that there are difficult problems in morality doesn’t disprove the existence of objective moral laws any more than difficult problems in science disprove the existence of objective natural laws.

We don't actually need to disprove the existence of objective morality. There's this concept, perhaps you've heard of it, it's called the burden of proof. In this case, it's entirely yours. You assert fuckwittery, you fucking support it.

Using the burden of proof in order to slip away from addressing the argument shows you really have no argument against objective moral law.
If moral law doesn’t exist, then statements like "Murder is evil," "Racism is wrong," or "You shouldn’t abuse children" have no objective meaning.

Lack of objective meaning =/= lack of meaning. That we actually have a metric to determine these things (due caveats regarding the existence of 'evil' aside) gives those statements meaning. There is no requirement for that meaning to be objective.

I guess it is merely an opinion that you shouldn’t abuse children according to you.

They're just someone’s opinion, on a par with "chocolate tastes better than vanilla".

And the problem with this is..?

If right & wrong are just opinions then there is nothing objectively wrong or right about anything. Including the view of atheists!

In fact, without the Moral Law, simple value-laden terms such as "good," "bad," "better, and "worse" would have no objective meaning.

Then they have no objective meaning. Again, this is a problem because..?

If someone said that stealing is bad no one would know what ‘bad’ meant. That is not a problem?

Why? Why does capitol refute my argument for an objective moral law?

It refutes any argument resting upon the value we allegedly place on life.

Are you saying that people don’t place value on human life? Or are you saying that you don’t? Capitol punishment shows we hold value to life because we execute people that don’t. The severity of capitol punishment shows that we believe someone guilty of taking a human life should be punishment should fit the crime.

I do admit this is a controversial issue, but it in no way, would negate my argument that life is valuable.

Valuable to whom?

Valuable to all. Are you saying you hold no value to other people’s lives? Do you feel the need to help some one stranded on the side of the road. Say a mother with her children? You wouldn’t feel an urge to stop and see if they needed help? Regardless if you stopped or not you should still feel like you ought to help or at least hope that they’ll be alright. That is what makes us human ya know? If you later found out that they froze to death you would feel bad about not stopping to help at least eh? Even if you say no, a lot of people would say you should at least feel bad.

If a serial killer is executed for his or her crimes then how would that refute that we should hold objective value to life?

Because taking a life does not equal valuing it. Precisely the opposite, in fact.

Taking the life of someone who took the life of some innocent person does not mean that we don’t hold value to life. It shows that we are serious about how strongly we feel that life should be valued by all people. What would you propose? That we set all the murderer’s free? That would be irresponsible wouldn’t it? Executing a murderer shows that we are serious about justice. I don’t agree with capitol punishment BTW.



Punishing a killer for the taken of a life or lives in no way suggest we don’t hold value to life.

It does if the chosen punishment is one that rails against the alleged value we place on life, especially in circumstances in which there are other options available.

I agree with you but some government officials feel differently. The fact that you feel this way shows that there is an objective moral law in which we subjectively reason to.

I should point out that not only killers are sentenced to death. Indeed, there is a case of a British woman in Indonesia at the moment who's been sentenced to death by firing squad for smuggling cocaine, another crime that has fuck all to do with morality.

The crime does have “fuck all” to do with morality. Cocaine addiction destroys peoples lives and the lives of their families. The fact that you find it abhorrent that a women be killed for smuggling it shows that you hold objective value to life.

If someone has taken a life and is in a place where capitol punishment is upheld then the justice handed out only shows that we take it very seriously when someone does not hold value to life. It only supports my argument! Not refutes it!

Bollocks, not least because revenge =/= justice. Only in very rare circumstances is execution justified, and serial killers and drug smugglers never meet the criteria. I only know of one case in my lifetime in which I thought the death penalty was justified, and it had zero to do with parochial laws.

The fact that your opinion is that capitol punishment is narrow minded proves objective morality. Without objective morality you could not even have an opinion about what is justice and what is injustice because you would not know the difference between the two! You have to have some idea of what is right in order to have an opinion about what is wrong!

Moral law exists. If it didn’t all morality is subjective and therefore all cases against murder and rape ect. would all just be opinions.


Apparently you have a different definition for ’rape’ than I. In the above quote you make two opposing claims. The first claim you make is that “rape is not an opinion“ rape is detrimental to society. Then in the very next sentence you make an opposing claim that since there are places where rape is not agreed by a culture to be wrong thus rape is morally subjective.

Well, as it happens, I don't agree with the above statement. Rape isn't detrimental to society, although it could be argued that allowing it would be. In any event, the statements do not contradict each other. That some cultures do not agree on specifics does demonstrate subjectivity in the definitions of the law, but those are rules, not morality. That some laws are defined with a clear eye to morality while others are not is a beautiful demonstration that morality is not objective, because if it were, then laws would be defined the same in specifics everywhere. That there exist laws that have nothing to do with morality is all the refutation required for any example you bring up that is rooted in legislation.

You just don’t get it! We legislate laws based on our subjective reasoning to the moral law written on our hearts. The moral law that is inherent within us. We have the ability to morally reason subjectively from it. Everyone knows that they should not murder because we intrinsically hold value to human life. But just because some do not uphold this value to life does not mean that they should not have. Even killers know killing is wrong, they just may not show remorse.

Even if you refute that it’s not contradictory, I will add that by definition, rape is done by forcing someone against their will. Therefore, by definition rape is not accepted anywhere by any culture at any time.

Imprisonment of criminals is forcing them against their will. Therefore by definition imprisonment is not accepted anywhere by any culture at any time. Oops!

Then if I use your logic I guess all women deserve to be raped. You said already that that would be detrimental to society if that were to be the case. Ya see, criminals are imprisoned against there will because they have committed a crime. Of course they don’t like imprisonment. Of course they would love to get out and continue to commit crimes. Every women would love it if they could get through life without being raped. Which personhoods should objectively be upheld? The difference is that it is wrong to rape. It is wrong to let criminals continue to commit crimes. These are both evidences of objective moral law.

See where really fucking poor reasoning gets you?

Yes I do see where it gets you.

You cannot force sex upon someone against their will and say “look! Rape is accepted! The very act of rape is forced upon the unwilling, thus rape is not accepted.


{quote] See above. Already fucked this ignorant drivel over. [/quote]

Not even hardly.

If your gonna say, “well the person that did the raping sure thought otherwise! Then I would say of course they did but it was still an act of force against the will of the victim. Therefore your argument that rape is accepted in certain cultures and therefore morally subjective, is debunked.

Except no, because I just cited an example of something that refutes your position wholesale.

Guess again hotshot!

pssst! Accuse me of straw man so you can avoid giving an explanation.

Why should I bother to do that, when I can show that you haven't actually engaged any sort of reasoning to any of this?

Unfortunately you have only showed that your reasoning is flawed. Actually flawed is an understatement.

Oh really? Yet another statement you can't remotely defend, not least because I've refuted every word of your ignorant bollocks in detail.

You have given a refutation that points out objective morality. Would you care to try again?

Alas it does not matter because people are gonna see your argument failed in a big way.

They hopefully will see how your argument got laid to waste.

It's almost a shame that we're not in the same room, so that I can see your face when you see how comprehensively your arguments have been eviscerated. Here's a tip: Those aren't purple shoelaces, they're the entrails of your idiotic arguments

[/quote]

Sorry but no. Not one bit. I don’t need to see your face because I have already seen what failure looks like. Give me another refutation so I can see what it looks like again!

 

[australopithecus]

Just a tip, Joe. Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Just a tip, Joe. Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right.

I am glad you think I repeated myself Austra. It shows I am consistent. I don't back down when I have a good reason to believe that moral law is objective.

 

[australopithecus]

Consistency isn't always a good thing is you're consistently wrong.

 

[Prolescum]

[. . .] Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. [. . .]

 

[Josephhasfun01]

[. . .] Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. [. . .]

God has written the moral law on our hearts. That is not circular. The buck stops at a first cause. Unless you prefer circular logic? By all means, if you disagree, tell me where you believe morality originated from?

 

[australopithecus]

We have told you; empathy. All social animals display some form of basic morality based on empathy and continued social cohesion. We extrapolate on this because we are more complex and intelligent animals. You want to posit God as the cause of morality, a self caused God that exists timelessly and eternally ever ever, and then you accuse others of circular logic?

If you had any concept of self awareness it would be satire.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

We have told you; empathy. All social animals display some form of basic morality based on empathy and continued social cohesion. We extrapolate on this because we are more complex and intelligent animals. You want to posit God as the cause of morality, a self caused God that exists timelessly and eternally ever ever, and then you accuse others of circular logic?

If you had any concept of self awareness it would be satire.

So are you positing we get our morals from animals?

God is not self caused. He is self existent. there is a huge difference there Austra.

 

[australopithecus]

So are you positing we get our morals from animals?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. I am positing that morals are derived from empathy, and is shared by other social animals as means to successful social cohesion, and that our morals are more developed because we are more complex and and intelligent animals.

God is not self caused. He is self existent. there is a huge difference there Austra.

Your argument is still circular, regardless of the semantic games you play.

 

[Prolescum]

God has written the moral law on our hearts.

Thank you for completing my 1980's-based gag of the week.

That is not circular.

Never said it was. Of course, the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true is circular. And, alas, that is all you seem to have brought to the table.
As has always been the case in my experience, believing something really hard, really earnestly, doesn't make something true.


At all.

The buck stops at a first cause.

According to you. Of course, I don't know is a totally unfamiliar concept to you, right?

Unless you prefer circular logic?

It was a joke based upon the proverb All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy and its use in the moving picture The Shining.

By all means, if you disagree, tell me where you believe morality originated from?

I have.


Repeatedly.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

So are you positing we get our morals from animals?

Joseph, I think this might be of benefit to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

 

[Josephhasfun01]

So are you positing we get our morals from animals?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. I am positing that morals are derived from empathy, and is shared by other social animals as means to successful social cohesion, and that our morals are more developed because we are more complex and and intelligent animals.

My reading comprehension is fine Austra. Maybe your explanations should give a little more detail and we would not have to do all this back and forth?

Animals do not have morality Austra. They do however have primal instincts. Only humans have a moral obligations to uphold value to life.

God is not self caused. He is self existent. there is a huge difference there Austra.

Your argument is still circular, regardless of the semantic games you play.

Well I would like a better explanation other than just an unsupported claim, if you don't mind?

 

[Darkprophet232]

Animals do not have morality Austra. They do however have primal instincts. Only humans have a moral obligations to uphold value to life.

Um Joseph, I have some bad news for you. Are you sitting down? Okay, take a deep breath and try to understand this.

Humans are animals. <i></i>

I know it may take a while for you to grasp this earth-shattering factoid, but please, if you feel the need to pass out, lie down first, on your stomach, so you don't choke to death on your own spit.

 

[australopithecus]

My reading comprehension is fine Austra. Maybe your explanations should give a little more detail and we would not have to do all this back and forth?

Funny how everyone else understood my point, except you. Would seem the lacking is on your part, not mine.

Animals do not have morality Austra. They do however have primal instincts. Only humans have a moral obligations to uphold value to life.

Behold, I back up my claims with sources. I await your cherry picking of them.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=morality+in+animals&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=UM0SUe_XJ83J0AXm8IDwDw&ved=0CDAQgQMwAA

Well I would like a better explanation other than just an unsupported claim, if you don't mind?

You have one. Try reading everyone's replies to you again.

 

[Frenger]

Sorry for my late reply, I was going to write a reply to Josephtalksshit01 but after reading his reply to Hackenslash, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the response.

But before I do, Joe, you have been making a couple of errors throughout thiscar crash of a conversation (not only two, but for now that is all I will concentrate on) and I want to answer them here.

Firstly, you assume that because morality is subjective, it is arbitrary. "Why do people follow this morality when it is just opinion" you have said over and over again.

So, say we are in a game, for eases sake let's say it is football (I know nothing of sports so don't quote me on any of this). Now, the rules in fotball are man made, but that doesn't mean that they don't matter. If someone strolls onto the pitch with a ball cannon and starts firing it into the others goal we don't say "well, the rules are only our opinion so I guess that's fine". We say, "no, you have acted outside of the rules and so you shall be penalised".

This works on two levels because rules for games are tinkered with overtime. So, we agree on base rules and as the game evolves, so do the rules. We tinker in a hope oof constantly improving the flow and entertainment level of the game. This is what we do in life, as it evolves and our knowledge expands, we adapt our morality to fit and improve the game.

So, these "rules" of life are not arbitrary just because we have made them. Another example would be pain. Pain is subjective, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary, you are predisposed to dislike pain. That you feel pain and can understand what it feels like means you are likely to not want to induce it in others, which leads me on to your second fail.

"If morality is subjective, why can't I do what I want". Morality has never been about just your wants, it's a discussion on how best to live your life in the context of a society. How your actions effect others is at the very heart of thisconversation.

When you said "morality is subjective so I can steal people's work" the response you got was not due to any objective morality, but an agreed understanding of how academic debates work. These rules are our own, and we guard them for good reasons. Passing other people's work of as your own is intellectual theft as well as academic dishonesty. We disagree with these actions because these rules are the ones that also protect ourselves. If someone uses anything I write (unlikely) then great, if someone steals it and passes it off as their own, not so great.

I don't expect any of this to sit with you because it would mean you are actually open to reading other sides of an argument instead of walking into a room, proclaiming victory and then celebrating.

Anyway. Feel free to respond to this as well as to my earlier points on incest, rape and child slaughter in the bible.

Tally ho.