Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
That world war II thing is really just an aside and I'm afraid it's a worthless tangent. You either are asserting that we cannot analyze World War II, which is patently ridiculous, or we can...Studied WWII? Historians, Students, Hobbyists...I'd presume - perhaps even sociologists, psychologists and other Sciences, too.I'm not really in any position to do so, I dont have classified intel, I dont have thorough study, I dont have the statistics, I havent contemplated the outcomes of the War versus not having it...Ok. Measure WWII objectively.
That can all be done, mind you...I just havent done it...and Im not about to pretend to have the required details so that I can make a quip out of it.
Ok. Who has done it?
You presume? If you can't do it and you know of no one else who can do it - then how do you know it can be done? And if someone did do it, how do you know it wasn't biased? What are the objective standards for evaluating suffering?
If you're saying we cannot, that's ridiculous. If you're saying we can, well that's all that I'm saying, and also that I personally haven't.
How do we measure suffering - - > by evaluating physical and emotional stress...ranging from death all the way to the electrical impulses your central nervous system sends to your brain.
The central nervous system is AWESOME, by the way. It's how an organism learns to avoid harm even without the development of being self-aware. Nature is fuckin' crazy.
That world war II thing is really just an aside and I'm afraid it's a worthless tangent. You either are asserting that we cannot analyze World War II, which is patently ridiculous, or we can...Studied WWII? Historians, Students, Hobbyists...I'd presume - perhaps even sociologists, psychologists and other Sciences, too.I'm not really in any position to do so, I dont have classified intel, I dont have thorough study, I dont have the statistics, I havent contemplated the outcomes of the War versus not having it...
That can all be done, mind you...I just havent done it...and Im not about to pretend to have the required details so that I can make a quip out of it.
Ok. Who has done it?
You presume? If you can't do it and you know of no one else who can do it - then how do you know it can be done? And if someone did do it, how do you know it wasn't biased? What are the objective standards for evaluating suffering?
If you're saying we cannot, that's ridiculous. If you're saying we can, well that's all that I'm saying, and also that I personally haven't.
How do we measure suffering - - > by evaluating physical and emotional stress...ranging from death all the way to the electrical impulses your central nervous system sends to your brain.
The central nervous system is AWESOME, by the way. It's how an organism learns to avoid harm even without the development of being self-aware. Nature is fuckin' crazy.
I'm saying you can't. Because you can't measure suffering objectively. You certainly can't balance between levels of suffering to determine what is an acceptable level of suffering. It is all subjective and biased.
If you want to play with CNS I am game. Two people with the exact same readings on whatever test you want to use. One rates their pain as a 4 out of ten and the other rates it as a 7 out of ten. Who is suffering more?
That world war II thing is really just an aside and I'm afraid it's a worthless tangent. You either are asserting that we cannot analyze World War II, which is patently ridiculous, or we can...Studied WWII? Historians, Students, Hobbyists...I'd presume - perhaps even sociologists, psychologists and other Sciences, too.Ok. Who has done it?
You presume? If you can't do it and you know of no one else who can do it - then how do you know it can be done? And if someone did do it, how do you know it wasn't biased? What are the objective standards for evaluating suffering?
If you're saying we cannot, that's ridiculous. If you're saying we can, well that's all that I'm saying, and also that I personally haven't.
How do we measure suffering - - > by evaluating physical and emotional stress...ranging from death all the way to the electrical impulses your central nervous system sends to your brain.
The central nervous system is AWESOME, by the way. It's how an organism learns to avoid harm even without the development of being self-aware. Nature is fuckin' crazy.
I'm saying you can't. Because you can't measure suffering objectively. You certainly can't balance between levels of suffering to determine what is an acceptable level of suffering. It is all subjective and biased.
If you want to play with CNS I am game. Two people with the exact same readings on whatever test you want to use. One rates their pain as a 4 out of ten and the other rates it as a 7 out of ten. Who is suffering more?
I disagree, I believe you can measure suffering objectively.
I defined it like ten posts ago. And EVEN physical pain is measurable. They discovered this in neuroscience in like 2013.That world war II thing is really just an aside and I'm afraid it's a worthless tangent. You either are asserting that we cannot analyze World War II, which is patently ridiculous, or we can...Studied WWII? Historians, Students, Hobbyists...I'd presume - perhaps even sociologists, psychologists and other Sciences, too.
You presume? If you can't do it and you know of no one else who can do it - then how do you know it can be done? And if someone did do it, how do you know it wasn't biased? What are the objective standards for evaluating suffering?
If you're saying we cannot, that's ridiculous. If you're saying we can, well that's all that I'm saying, and also that I personally haven't.
How do we measure suffering - - > by evaluating physical and emotional stress...ranging from death all the way to the electrical impulses your central nervous system sends to your brain.
The central nervous system is AWESOME, by the way. It's how an organism learns to avoid harm even without the development of being self-aware. Nature is fuckin' crazy.
I'm saying you can't. Because you can't measure suffering objectively. You certainly can't balance between levels of suffering to determine what is an acceptable level of suffering. It is all subjective and biased.
If you want to play with CNS I am game. Two people with the exact same readings on whatever test you want to use. One rates their pain as a 4 out of ten and the other rates it as a 7 out of ten. Who is suffering more?
I disagree, I believe you can measure suffering objectively.
You are free to believe what you like. For me, belief is just belief and I don't accept that as evidence. Frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed just to define suffering. But I am open. Show me.
I defined it like ten posts ago. And EVEN physical pain is measurable. They discovered this in neuroscience in like 2013.That world war II thing is really just an aside and I'm afraid it's a worthless tangent. You either are asserting that we cannot analyze World War II, which is patently ridiculous, or we can...You presume? If you can't do it and you know of no one else who can do it - then how do you know it can be done? And if someone did do it, how do you know it wasn't biased? What are the objective standards for evaluating suffering?
If you're saying we cannot, that's ridiculous. If you're saying we can, well that's all that I'm saying, and also that I personally haven't.
How do we measure suffering - - > by evaluating physical and emotional stress...ranging from death all the way to the electrical impulses your central nervous system sends to your brain.
The central nervous system is AWESOME, by the way. It's how an organism learns to avoid harm even without the development of being self-aware. Nature is fuckin' crazy.
I'm saying you can't. Because you can't measure suffering objectively. You certainly can't balance between levels of suffering to determine what is an acceptable level of suffering. It is all subjective and biased.
If you want to play with CNS I am game. Two people with the exact same readings on whatever test you want to use. One rates their pain as a 4 out of ten and the other rates it as a 7 out of ten. Who is suffering more?
I disagree, I believe you can measure suffering objectively.
You are free to believe what you like. For me, belief is just belief and I don't accept that as evidence. Frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed just to define suffering. But I am open. Show me.
You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.I think you read past what I actually said.A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.
Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.
Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.
Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.
What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.
Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.I think you read past what I actually said.
Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.
Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.
What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.
Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.I think you read past what I actually said.
Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.
Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.
What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.
Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
It doesnt have agency, and is not a god.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
Here's a question. Why should "evolution" build suffering into its ONLY driving force--reproduction? Not as a maybe, but as an absolute given? And why then should any woman not give it a certain finger?
Evolution is an incredibly self-defeating god. Evolution built in a great deal of suffering for me in the act of carrying, bringing forth and, to a certain degree, even raising children--and yet evolved in me a brain that can say "and for what? For 60, 70, maybe 80 trips around your pointless sun? To what end?"
GT, your god sucks.
It’s a stretch to say that evolution built suffering into life, but suffering does serve a purpose.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
Here's a question. Why should "evolution" build suffering into its ONLY driving force--reproduction? Not as a maybe, but as an absolute given? And why then should any woman not give it a certain finger?
Evolution is an incredibly self-defeating god. Evolution built in a great deal of suffering for me in the act of carrying, bringing forth and, to a certain degree, even raising children--and yet evolved in me a brain that can say "and for what? For 60, 70, maybe 80 trips around your pointless sun? To what end?"
GT, your god sucks.
You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
If that is the case, then morality can only be applied retrospectively.
That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
If that is the case, then morality can only be applied retrospectively.
Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
If that is the case, then morality can only be applied retrospectively.
Conceptualizing is not the same thing as knowing. We do indeed make up stories in our heads, but that does not mean the stories are true. If I make a decision based upon what I think will cause the least suffering and in fact causes more suffering, then it was an immoral decision. If I make a decision that was intended to cause more suffering and in fact caused less, then it was a moral decision.
If morality is cause and effect, then intent is no longer in the equation. Morality is simply an uncontrolled sequence of events that can only be evaluated after the fact.
Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
If that is the case, then morality can only be applied retrospectively.
Conceptualizing is not the same thing as knowing. We do indeed make up stories in our heads, but that does not mean the stories are true. If I make a decision based upon what I think will cause the least suffering and in fact causes more suffering, then it was an immoral decision. If I make a decision that was intended to cause more suffering and in fact caused less, then it was a moral decision.
If morality is cause and effect, then intent is no longer in the equation. Morality is simply an uncontrolled sequence of events that can only be evaluated after the fact.
You dunno how to extrapolate properly, so whh dont you just ASK...>Saves time, saves headache, etc etc
And then we can progress. Example: you just said we can conceptualize but thats not knowing.
The Law of identity, A is A, disproves that. The Principle of excluded middle disproves that and the Law of Non contradiction as well.
You can KNOW, conceptualize, the future this way. Touch a screaming hot stove bare skinned and you will be burned...times 7 million examples.
Im not sure why cause and effect preclude intent from mattering. Of course intent matters, thats why mere killing isnt morally wrong because you can be killing to prevent greater suffering...like killing a mass shooter.
That was a waste of time dude... you need to SIT DOWN with these things and CONTEMPLATE before wasting time with invalid extrapolations/assertions.
It’s a stretch to say that evolution built suffering into life, but suffering does serve a purpose.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
Here's a question. Why should "evolution" build suffering into its ONLY driving force--reproduction? Not as a maybe, but as an absolute given? And why then should any woman not give it a certain finger?
Evolution is an incredibly self-defeating god. Evolution built in a great deal of suffering for me in the act of carrying, bringing forth and, to a certain degree, even raising children--and yet evolved in me a brain that can say "and for what? For 60, 70, maybe 80 trips around your pointless sun? To what end?"
GT, your god sucks.
Basic instincts.It’s a stretch to say that evolution built suffering into life, but suffering does serve a purpose.You misapprehended. Suffering cannot be eliminated, and some suffering now is for lesser suffering later.You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.
You failed at suffering and reproduction. Hugely.
Childbirth is tremendous suffering; pregnancy is no picnic and raising human children isn't always a walk in the park either. "Evolution" is one stupid, short-sighted and self-defeating god, if the endgame is to create more humans.
One would presume you could extrapolate that if we didnt suffer childbirth...We'd become extinct. That was short-sighted.
Here's a question. Why should "evolution" build suffering into its ONLY driving force--reproduction? Not as a maybe, but as an absolute given? And why then should any woman not give it a certain finger?
Evolution is an incredibly self-defeating god. Evolution built in a great deal of suffering for me in the act of carrying, bringing forth and, to a certain degree, even raising children--and yet evolved in me a brain that can say "and for what? For 60, 70, maybe 80 trips around your pointless sun? To what end?"
GT, your god sucks.
It absolutely did. Humans have very large brains--that supposedly "evolved". Believe me, women suffer when those heads start pressing down from the inside AND when giving birth. More importantly, human babies have to be born dreadfully early and helpless when compared to other species because of our big brains.
So we're faulty from the outset. Why then should anyone care if we go extinct?
In a godless world, why should anyone?
GT?
