Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[Blues Man]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

you wrote

" So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again. "


So why do you speculate such a thing about me?

You insist on making this argument personal which tells me you cannot support your position in any other way that by trying to get me to contradict myself. I won't

ANd the only thing you said so far that I agree with is that morals can be whatever we want them to be.

But there is no universal code.

Your response tells me that you believe I was wrong, right? That I wronged you?

I did it to prove that point, dummy.

You cannot wrong me as you are an anonymous poster on an internet board.

But since you cannot continue without the childish name calling and you cannot follow the tenets of logic that have been established for argument I have my proof that logic is not universal

I'm just waiting for you to admit you would have sex with children if society told you it was OK.

Personally I think that is fucked up and don't care what society says. Logic says it is wrong.

Case in point, I believe abortion is wrong and don't care what society thinks.

And I won't do that.

But you can't seem to comprehend that you cannot divorce yourself from the influence of the society you were raised in. Those beliefs have been ingrained in you since birth and reinforced your entire life by your interaction with countless people.

We are more the children of society than we are of our parents.

And you can't seem to comprehend that you cannot divorce logic from establishing absolute morals.

That might be true but both logic and morals are created by man so no matter how you slice it they are both human constructions

 

[Blues Man]

Every positive change in status quo came about because there are absolute morals. It is not because they changed their minds it is because they realized they were wrong.

Realizing a concept and acting on it is the very definition of changing one's mind

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man would you have owned slaves 180 years ago?

Or would you have been one of those people who knew it was wrong 180 years ago?

That is an unanswerable question.

And human slavery existed for millennia before people started to believe it was wrong. As societies evolved and advanced that is one of the beliefs that changed over time

You are confusing indentured servitude with forced slavery, dummy.

I suspect all throughout history there were people who knew forced slavery was wrong. Certainly the slaves did.

You won't answer the question because you are dishonest.

No I'm not. You don't seem to understand that the entirety of history has not been recorded.

And you seem to just be talking about slavery in the US.

Did you know the Romans had slaves?

The Egyptians?

I have forgotten more about slavery than you ever knew.

so then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was noit because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

 

[Blues Man]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

just as you have not proven one of your assertions

I disagree. I have explained what it is. You have only argued what it isn't.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

The history of societal morals is the history of man as they could not have existed before man.

Our morals have evolved for no other reason than some behaviors are more beneficial to survival.

The concept of fairness is no different. In fact I believe the concept of fairness was born out of the human trait of jealousy.

Right and wrong / fairness is an artifact of intelligence. It is based on logic. It existed before man existed and was only waiting to be discovered like everything else which is apart from man.

Logic was invented by man in an attempt to better his own reasoning ability.

Like ding, I've always understood that logic is the ontological foundation of morality. Humans did not invent the laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and arguably the principles of sufficient causation and inference. Your notion is absurd. Humans have understood the laws of logic from the jump. Indeed, the universally objective imperatives of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over reasoning, language and science.

Of course they did.

Logic is nothing but the self examination of the human thought process.

Logic is man's attempt to understand his own reasoning. That desire to understand one's own thought is the hallmark of intellect. We could not have taken on such an endeavor until our minds had acquired the thinking processes to do so.

 

[Blues Man]

Personally I can't understand why people would believe morals are determined by society because we know from recent history that there were people who opposed slavery when slavery was accepted by society. Or we could use abortion today as an example of people not accepting what society determines is right and wrong.

As for the argument that we are taught right and wrong by our parents this may be true when we are children but eventually we grow up and get to think for ourselves. If the argument is correct that we only believe what we were taught by our parents then we would never change our beliefs when we grow up.

When I was a child I instinctively adopted my parents morality, including my mother's subtle racial prejudice. My mother, like my father, was always appalled by any overt racial injustice, but unlike my father, she was raised by racists. By the way, my mother is thankful for my father's influence and came to renounce that nonsense years ago. When I was a teen, I rejected a number of the morals my parents taught me, my mother's racial prejudice for one. As an adult I came to realize that I was mostly wrong as hell.

Humans do not have instincts. You were conditioned to believe what you parents believed. Then as you grew you were also conditioned by the society you lived in.

 

[Blues Man]

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself.

Morals exist. I never said they didn't. I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), which is what you're actually alluding to in this case.

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight.

This, ultimately, is just one of the things ding and I are trying to help you see. But for the moment forget about all that.

And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject.

I didn't quote the entirety of your propositional situations for a reason. Early I wrote:

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone.​

​

So (1) what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and (2) by what means do you make this distinction?​

Apparently, by way of an answer, you responded with questions of your own. Fine. I can do it your way, so I began the process of answering your questions. Observe:

Let's take killing.. Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.​

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?​

Answer?

you need to quote the post where you claim I said there was a difference between killing and murdering.

I did speak of self defense.

And you are ignoring the context of my example. So I'll humor you this once. No, in my example my wife was not trying to kill anyone but was an innocent victim

So tell me why is it not OK for me to hunt down and kill the man that killed my wife but it's OK for the police to hunt him down and for the state to kill him?

 

[Blues Man]

An objective standard of morality exists.

Since no one had provided proof of that yet do you care to?

 

[Blues Man]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

just as you have not proven one of your assertions

I disagree. I have explained what it is. You have only argued what it isn't.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

The history of societal morals is the history of man as they could not have existed before man.

Our morals have evolved for no other reason than some behaviors are more beneficial to survival.

The concept of fairness is no different. In fact I believe the concept of fairness was born out of the human trait of jealousy.

Right and wrong / fairness is an artifact of intelligence. It is based on logic. It existed before man existed and was only waiting to be discovered like everything else which is apart from man.

Logic was invented by man in an attempt to better his own reasoning ability.

Like ding, I've always understood that logic is the ontological foundation of morality. Humans did not invent the laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and arguably the principles of sufficient causation and inference. Your notion is absurd. Humans have understood the laws of logic from the jump. Indeed, the universally objective imperatives of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over reasoning, language and science.

Right. Whether or not they knew what logic was, they used it. It's an artifact of intelligence.

so now you say logic rises from intellect?

Funny that's what I have been saying all along.

Logic as we know it is the result of man trying to understand his own reasoning process. IOW he started to think about his own thoughts.

There was not outside force that created logic

 

[Ringtone]

When I was a child I instinctively adopted my parents morality, including my mother's subtle racial prejudice. My mother, like my father, was always appalled by any overt racial injustice, but unlike my father, she was raised by racists. By the way, my mother is thankful for my father's influence and came to renounce that nonsense years ago. When I was a teen, I rejected a number of the morals my parents taught me, my mother's racial prejudice for one. As an adult I came to realize that I was mostly wrong as hell.

Humans do not have instincts. You were conditioned to believe what you parents believed. Then as you grew you were also conditioned by the society you lived in.

Nonsense.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" ( 1 Corinthians 13:11).

I did not and could not fully own my thought processes as a child. No child does. This simply goes to the dynamics of physiological and psychological (or intellectual) maturation, namely, the experiential development of abstract thought. Infants and toddlers are mostly instinctually driven. With maturation, this gives way to proclivity, intuition, learning and, eventually, understanding and independent decision. Hence, human beings of normal psychological development are simply not instinctual creatures as such.

Notwithstanding, men tend to be more competitive and aggressive by nature, women, more nurturing and socially cooperative by nature. The survival instincts of fear and revulsion/disgust endure, as well as the maternal instinct.

 

[Blues Man]

When I was a child I instinctively adopted my parents morality, including my mother's subtle racial prejudice. My mother, like my father, was always appalled by any overt racial injustice, but unlike my father, she was raised by racists. By the way, my mother is thankful for my father's influence and came to renounce that nonsense years ago. When I was a teen, I rejected a number of the morals my parents taught me, my mother's racial prejudice for one. As an adult I came to realize that I was mostly wrong as hell.

Humans do not have instincts. You were conditioned to believe what you parents believed. Then as you grew you were also conditioned by the society you lived in.

Nonsense.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" ( 1 Corinthians 13:11).

I did not and could not fully own my thought processes as a child. No child does. This simply goes to the dynamics of physiological and psychological (or intellectual) maturation, namely, the experiential development of abstract thought. Infants and toddlers are mostly instinctually driven. With maturation, this gives way to proclivity, intuition, learning and, eventually, understanding and independent decision. Hence, human beings of normal psychological development are simply not instinctual creatures as such.

Notwithstanding, men tend to be more competitive and aggressive by nature, women, more nurturing and socially cooperative by nature. The survival instincts of fear and revulsion/disgust endure, as well as the maternal instinct.

An instinct is an unlearned species specific behavior that persists generation to generation.
You do not instinctively adopt your parents behavior you are taught that behavior by your parents.

The maternal instinct you speak of is nothing but modeling the behavior of other mothers.

Revulsion and disgust are learned behaviors as well and have no real bearing on survival.

If I dropped you naked into the middle of the rain forest you would die because you were not taught how to survive in that environment.

All complex human behaviors are learned.

Instinctive behavior is rigid and inflexible

We as humans are not bound by such rigid behaviors, in fact it is just the opposite. Our behaviors are extremely flexible which has allowed humans to prosper in all environments

 

[Ringtone]

So then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was not because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

And the enslaved thought that involuntary servitude was good?! The enslavers did not use initial, overwhelming force to enslave them? The enslavers yearned to be the enslaved themselves because slavery was good? The enslavers were unaware of the threat, i.e., were not fearful of the consequences should they ever lose the upper hand?

They didn't need any moral epiphany to the know the truth. The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

 

[BreezeWood]

So then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was not because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

And the enslaved thought that involuntary servitude was good?! The enslavers did not use initial, overwhelming force to enslave them? The enslavers yearned to be the enslaved themselves because slavery was good? The enslavers were unaware of the threat, i.e., were not fearful of the consequences should they ever lose the upper hand?

They didn't need any moral epiphany to the know the truth. The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

.

The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

.
you speak as though slavery is in the past tense ...
.

Florida Bill Would Limit Who Gets $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage

Voters approved a 2018 amendment to raise the minimum wage.

www.mynews13.com

.
slavery is alive and well, doing just fine ... among the political / religious adherents.

repentance is the single most attribute alien to the christian, desert religions. uninterrupted through the centuries including the crucifixion of the religious itinerant in the 1st century.

 

[Ringtone]

Humans do not have instincts. You were conditioned to believe what you parents believed. Then as you grew you were also conditioned by the society you lived in.

Nonsense.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" ( 1 Corinthians 13:11).

I did not and could not fully own my thought processes as a child. No child does. This simply goes to the dynamics of physiological and psychological (or intellectual) maturation, namely, the experiential development of abstract thought. Infants and toddlers are mostly instinctually driven. With maturation, this gives way to proclivity, intuition, learning and, eventually, understanding and independent decision. Hence, human beings of normal psychological development are simply not instinctual creatures as such.

Notwithstanding, men tend to be more competitive and aggressive by nature, women, more nurturing and socially cooperative by nature. The survival instincts of fear and revulsion/disgust endure, as well as the maternal instinct.

You do not instinctively adopt your parents behavior you are taught that behavior by your parents.

Nonsense. Once again, I did not and could not fully own my thought processes as a child. No child does. This simply goes to the dynamics of physiological and psychological (or intellectual) maturation, namely, the experiential development of abstract thought. Infants and toddlers are mostly instinctually driven. With maturation, this gives way to proclivity, intuition, learning and, ultimately, understanding and independent decision. Hence, human beings of normal psychological development are simply not instinctual creatures as such.

The maternal instinct you speak of is nothing but modeling the behavior of other mothers.

False. I'm not referring to the modeled, learned or experientially acquired responses of maternal bonding at all, which is what you're going on about. I'm strictly alluding to the biochemical effects of the clusters of oxytocin receptor cells and estrogen that are more prevalently present in female brains. The area of the brain involved in regulating parental behavior is more active in women than men when, for example, stimulated by the sound of crying infants and toddlers, especially in the brains of pregnant women and mothers of newborns. Generally, the drive is there, the rest is learned.

Revulsion and disgust are learned behaviors as well and have no real bearing on survival.

You're conflating the fundamentally instinctual reactions of survival—fear and revulsion/disgust—in the presence of predatory and environmental threats, and the acquired likes and dislikes of common experience.

If I dropped you naked into the middle of the rain forest you would die because you were not taught how to survive in that environment.

Actually, I'd probably survive as long as I managed to avoid severe injuries. I was trained to deal with that sort of environment in the Marines.

All complex human behaviors are learned.

Yes. In the meantime, much of the behavior of infants and toddlers is instinctually driven, and adults can even suppress the instinctual reactions of biochemical impulses.

Instinctive behavior is rigid and inflexible.

Yes. But some reactions are instinctual in humans as well, albeit, mostly in terms of development only.

We as humans are not bound by such rigid behaviors, in fact it is just the opposite. Our behaviors are extremely flexible which has allowed humans to prosper in all environments.

Yes.

In any event, regarding the extent to which human reactions and behaviors, alternately, are instinctual, psychologists continue to debate these things. You have your more rigid opinion, and I have my more nuanced opinion. Let's not get sidetracked here.

 

[Ringtone]

So then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was not because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

And the enslaved thought that involuntary servitude was good?! The enslavers did not use initial, overwhelming force to enslave them? The enslavers yearned to be the enslaved themselves because slavery was good? The enslavers were unaware of the threat, i.e., were not fearful of the consequences should they ever lose the upper hand?

They didn't need any moral epiphany to the know the truth. The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

.

you speak as though slavery is in the past tense ...

.
False. Blues Man and I were speaking about the chattel slavery of the Roman Empire in the past tense only. See above.

No drop and give me 50!

 

[Ringtone]

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself.

Morals exist. I never said they didn't. I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), which is what you're actually alluding to in this case.

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight.

This, ultimately, is just one of the things ding and I are trying to help you see. But for the moment forget about all that.

And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject.

I didn't quote the entirety of your propositional situations for a reason. Early I wrote:

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone.​

​

So (1) what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and (2) by what means do you make this distinction?​

Apparently, by way of an answer, you responded with questions of your own. Fine. I can do it your way, so I began the process of answering your questions. Observe:

Let's take killing.. Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.​

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?​

Answer?

you need to quote the post where you claim I said there was a difference between killing and murdering.

I did speak of self defense.

And you are ignoring the context of my example. So I'll humor you this once. No, in my example my wife was not trying to kill anyone but was an innocent victim

So tell me why is it not OK for me to hunt down and kill the man that killed my wife but it's OK for the police to hunt him down and for the state to kill him?

Yes, you spoke of self-defense in response to initial force. The person defending his life against such is morally justified to use deadly force if necessary. That is not murder, but justifiable homicide.

I did not ignore anything. I made it abundantly clear that I would happily address your questions, even though you ignored my questions and, instead, asked questions of your own. I said fine. I'll do it your way.

So she was the victim of initial force; hence, this guy murdered her and you want revenge, right?

The reason it would be morally wrong to take unilateral action against him is because without the rule of law and due process our society would devolve into chaos and nobody would be safe. Your act of vengeance would be harmful to others who are innocent. Hence, violations of natural law committed by social renegades must be addressed by the collective body politic. As a collective under the rule of law we are obliged by duty to "hunt him down", try him and administer justice should he in fact be found to be culpable as charged. The body politic would be justified to defend itself against him by confining him or using deadly force against him if warranted.

The key to understanding the application of the universally objective standard of morality is empathetically observing the actual outcomes of one's actions. One can not do that subjectively.

 

[Blues Man]

So then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was not because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

And the enslaved thought that involuntary servitude was good?! The enslavers did not use initial, overwhelming force to enslave them? The enslavers yearned to be the enslaved themselves because slavery was good? The enslavers were unaware of the threat, i.e., were not fearful of the consequences should they ever lose the upper hand?

They didn't need any moral epiphany to the know the truth. The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

the argument was that people realized slavery was wrong and then abolished it.

That did not happen in Rome there was no abolishment of slavery for moral reasons.

In fact there were 3 major slave rebellions in Rome and even those did not motivate the people of Rome to end slavery.

And just because we as humans have changed our minds regarding slavery that in no way proves that some absolute standard of moral exists apart from the human mind

 

[Blues Man]

Humans do not have instincts. You were conditioned to believe what you parents believed. Then as you grew you were also conditioned by the society you lived in.

Nonsense.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" ( 1 Corinthians 13:11).

I did not and could not fully own my thought processes as a child. No child does. This simply goes to the dynamics of physiological and psychological (or intellectual) maturation, namely, the experiential development of abstract thought. Infants and toddlers are mostly instinctually driven. With maturation, this gives way to proclivity, intuition, learning and, eventually, understanding and independent decision. Hence, human beings of normal psychological development are simply not instinctual creatures as such.

Notwithstanding, men tend to be more competitive and aggressive by nature, women, more nurturing and socially cooperative by nature. The survival instincts of fear and revulsion/disgust endure, as well as the maternal instinct.

You do not instinctively adopt your parents behavior you are taught that behavior by your parents.

Nonsense. Once again, I did not and could not fully own my thought processes as a child. No child does. This simply goes to the dynamics of physiological and psychological (or intellectual) maturation, namely, the experiential development of abstract thought. Infants and toddlers are mostly instinctually driven. With maturation, this gives way to proclivity, intuition, learning and, ultimately, understanding and independent decision. Hence, human beings of normal psychological development are simply not instinctual creatures as such.

The maternal instinct you speak of is nothing but modeling the behavior of other mothers.

False. I'm not referring to the modeled, learned or experientially acquired responses of maternal bonding at all, which is what you're going on about. I'm strictly alluding to the biochemical effects of the clusters of oxytocin receptor cells and estrogen that are more prevalently present in female brains. The area of the brain involved in regulating parental behavior is more active in women than men when, for example, stimulated by the sound of crying infants and toddlers, especially in the brains of pregnant women and mothers of newborns. Generally, the drive is there, the rest is learned.

Revulsion and disgust are learned behaviors as well and have no real bearing on survival.

You're conflating the fundamentally instinctual reactions of survival—fear and revulsion/disgust—in the presence of predatory and environmental threats, and the acquired likes and dislikes of common experience.

If I dropped you naked into the middle of the rain forest you would die because you were not taught how to survive in that environment.

Actually, I'd probably survive as long as I managed to avoid severe injuries. I was trained to deal with that sort of environment in the Marines.

All complex human behaviors are learned.

Yes. In the meantime, much of the behavior of infants and toddlers is instinctually driven, and adults can even suppress the instinctual reactions of biochemical impulses.

Instinctive behavior is rigid and inflexible.

Yes. But some reactions are instinctual in humans as well, albeit, mostly in terms of development only.

We as humans are not bound by such rigid behaviors, in fact it is just the opposite. Our behaviors are extremely flexible which has allowed humans to prosper in all environments.

Yes.

In any event, regarding the extent to which human reactions and behaviors, alternately, are instinctual, psychologists continue to debate these things. You have your more rigid opinion, and I have my more nuanced opinion. Let's not get sidetracked here.

So without training you would be unlikely to survive.

If there was a survival instinct you would not need training to know what to do.

And saying that humans have instincts is the more rigid interpretation.

We are not bound by instinctual behavior which is why we adapt so readily to many different and changing environments.

And hormonal differences or changes do not indicate an instinct is present. An instinct is a behavior that is unlearned.

The Maternal Myth

Why motherhood can be such a tough decision.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Blues Man]

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself.

Morals exist. I never said they didn't. I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), which is what you're actually alluding to in this case.

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight.

This, ultimately, is just one of the things ding and I are trying to help you see. But for the moment forget about all that.

And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject.

I didn't quote the entirety of your propositional situations for a reason. Early I wrote:

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone.​

​

So (1) what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and (2) by what means do you make this distinction?​

Apparently, by way of an answer, you responded with questions of your own. Fine. I can do it your way, so I began the process of answering your questions. Observe:

Let's take killing.. Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.​

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?​

Answer?

you need to quote the post where you claim I said there was a difference between killing and murdering.

I did speak of self defense.

And you are ignoring the context of my example. So I'll humor you this once. No, in my example my wife was not trying to kill anyone but was an innocent victim

So tell me why is it not OK for me to hunt down and kill the man that killed my wife but it's OK for the police to hunt him down and for the state to kill him?

Yes, you spoke of self-defense in response to initial force. The person defending his life against such is morally justified to use deadly force if necessary. That is not murder, but justifiable homicide.

I did not ignore anything. I made it abundantly clear that I would happily address your questions, even though you ignored my questions and, instead, asked questions of your own. I said fine. I'll do it your way.

So she was the victim of initial force; hence, this guy murdered her and you want revenge, right?

The reason it would be morally wrong to take unilateral action against him is because without the rule of law and due process our society would devolve into chaos and nobody would be safe. Your act of vengeance would be harmful to others who are innocent. Hence, violations of natural law committed by social renegades must be addressed by the collective body politic. As a collective under the rule of law we are obliged by duty to "hunt him down", try him and administer justice should he in fact be found to be culpable as charged. The body politic would be justified to defend itself against him by confining him or using deadly force against him if warranted.

The key to understanding the application of the universally objective standard of morality is empathetically observing the actual outcomes of one's actions. One can not do that subjectively.

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

 

[Ringtone]

So then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was not because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

And the enslaved thought that involuntary servitude was good?! The enslavers did not use initial, overwhelming force to enslave them? The enslavers yearned to be the enslaved themselves because slavery was good? The enslavers were unaware of the threat, i.e., were not fearful of the consequences should they ever lose the upper hand?

They didn't need any moral epiphany to the know the truth. The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

the argument was that people realized slavery was wrong and then abolished it.

That did not happen in Rome there was no abolishment of slavery for moral reasons.

In fact there were 3 major slave rebellions in Rome and even those did not motivate the people of Rome to end slavery.

And just because we as humans have changed our minds regarding slavery that in no way proves that some absolute standard of moral exists apart from the human mind

I see that once again you disregard the moral ramifications of my questions.

 

[BreezeWood]

So then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was not because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

And the enslaved thought that involuntary servitude was good?! The enslavers did not use initial, overwhelming force to enslave them? The enslavers yearned to be the enslaved themselves because slavery was good? The enslavers were unaware of the threat, i.e., were not fearful of the consequences should they ever lose the upper hand?

They didn't need any moral epiphany to the know the truth. The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

.

you speak as though slavery is in the past tense ...

.
False. Blues Man and I were speaking about the chattel slavery of the Roman Empire in the past tense only. See above.

No drop and give me 50!

.

For the reasons I have stated. Every single gain in human rights has occurred because there are absolute morals and truth. Forced slavery ended because it was wrong and their were people who fought to end it. Same for the cultures that allowed sex with children.

you speak as though slavery is in the past tense ...

False. Blues Man and I were speaking about the chattel slavery of the Roman Empire in the past tense only. See above.

No drop and give me 50!

.
I would suggest who have fought slavery are still engaged - with the same adversary.
.

Florida Bill Would Limit Who Gets $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage

Voters approved a 2018 amendment to raise the minimum wage.

www.mynews13.com

.
and it will take the triumph of one over the other to settle the matter as prescribed by the religion of antiquity that in itself would make "absolute morals" at best tentative and subjective to their accomplishment. till acomplished simillarly by all remaining to fulfill the parable and only then for which was accomplished. in final judgement. by who in the metaphysical is in charge at the time judgement is rendered. - - for admission by the feed spirit to the Everlasting.