Is it really free will, If you only have one option?

[ding]

It’s all part and parcel.

But still after the fact. So oftwn not a part of geberating the behavior, which is completely germane to the point. You can't sidestep it.

No. It is part and parcel. It shows the distinction. There are consequences to intelligence. One of which is developing a moral code.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. It is part and parcel. It shows the distinction.

No, it only shows ontrospective self awareness. There is not muxh distinction at all in the origin and preformance of hard wired, evolutionary behavior between, say, a human and a chimp. You can point out differences all day, but the root of the behavior is hard wired by evolution nonetheless.

Do you understand why "baby things" seem cute? Hard wired behavior produced by evolution.

 

[ding]

No. It is part and parcel. It shows the distinction.

No, it only shows ontrospective self awareness. There is not muxh distinction at all in the origin and preformance of hard wired, evolutionary behavior between, say, a human and a chimp. You can point out differences all day, but the root of the behavior is hard wired by evolution nonetheless.

Do you understand why "baby things" seem cute? Hard wired behavior produced by evolution.

It seems that you just agreed that developing a code of moral behaviors offers a functional advantage over not developing a code of moral behaviors. Right?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

False. Many times, it is precisely what humans do. Again, much of our behavior is simply hardwired. Our affinity and protectiveness of our children is a product of evolution, and the same behavior can be found not just in our closest relatives, but in many mammals. This arose not from any special intellect or divine horseshit, but rather evolved alongside the evolution of our underdeveloped offspring.

And we still attach words like "right" and "moral" to this behavior, after the fact. Because we can think about it and employ our introspective self awareness in considering it. But its really not a "choice", in the sense of being agents of our own thoughts and behaviors, anymore than it is for an elephant or a dolphin.

People use free will to override hardwired behavior all the time. The mother that drives her children off a cliff to their death?

That's not a biological imperative....that's free will. Why atheists strain credulity to make the case against an obvious feature of human consciousness (free will) is puzzling to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. It is part and parcel. It shows the distinction.

No, it only shows ontrospective self awareness. There is not muxh distinction at all in the origin and preformance of hard wired, evolutionary behavior between, say, a human and a chimp. You can point out differences all day, but the root of the behavior is hard wired by evolution nonetheless.

Do you understand why "baby things" seem cute? Hard wired behavior produced by evolution.

It seems that you just agreed that developing a code of moral behaviors offers a functional advantage over not developing a code of moral behaviors. Right?

In a social animal? Sure, scientists have known that for 150 years, ding. Evolution seems to have "known" it for 100s of millions of years. In some animals, some apparently selfless behavior would be a disadvantage.

Human behaviors are often different, of course, so youre not breaking any new ground with the new position you have taken (after misspeakimg and moving the goal posts). But it remains fact that much of our behavior is hard wired by evolution. Sure, often our consciousness affects it, and sometimes it does not. We're covering college freshman ground here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People use free will to override hardwired behavior all the time.

And often do not. You know this, and that's why you didnt say they ALWAYS do. So you have already agreed with me.

 

[ding]

No. It is part and parcel. It shows the distinction.

No, it only shows ontrospective self awareness. There is not muxh distinction at all in the origin and preformance of hard wired, evolutionary behavior between, say, a human and a chimp. You can point out differences all day, but the root of the behavior is hard wired by evolution nonetheless.

Do you understand why "baby things" seem cute? Hard wired behavior produced by evolution.

It seems that you just agreed that developing a code of moral behaviors offers a functional advantage over not developing a code of moral behaviors. Right?

In a social animal? Sure, scientists have known that for 150 years, ding. Evolution seems to have "known" it for 100s of millions of years. In some animals, some apparently selfless behavior would be a disadvantage.

Human behaviors are often different, of course, so youre not breaking any new ground with the new position you have taken (after misspeakimg and moving the goal posts). But it remains fact that much of our behavior is hard wired by evolution. Sure, often our consciousness affects it, and sometimes it does not. We're covering college freshman ground here.

So in other words it was destined by the laws of nature.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are no "absolute morals". There are morals, and they have as much substance as we grant them.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And often do not. You know this, and that's why you didnt say they ALWAYS do. So you have already agreed with me.

I agree with you IF you claim free will is a feature of human consciousness. If not, like all atheists, then I don't.

 

[ding]

There are no "absolute morals". There are morals, and they have as much substance as we grant them.

Don't be silly, of course there are. Nature does have a preference for an outcome. It's called functional advantage.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree with you IF you claim free will is a feature of human consciousness.

No, introspective self awareness is a feature of human consciousness. Free will, in the sense of being active agents of our choices, is an illusion. You are a physical system, following all the same deterministic laws as any other.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't be silly, of course there are.

Gee, that's compelling.

Or not.

So your point is that the hardwired morals are the abaolute morals. Well, then, a lot of our absolute morals are terrible, and thank goodness we can refine and have refined them and continue to do so.

 

[Likkmee]

 

[ding]

Don't be silly, of course there are.

Gee, that's compelling.

Or not.

So your point is that the hardwired morals are the abaolute morals. Well, then, a lot of our absolute morals are terrible, and thank goodness we can refine and have refined them and continue to do so.

My point is that morals are effectively standards and they exist for a reason. It's not an accident.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My point is that morals are effectively standards and they exist for a reason.

No, that's your NEW point, after moving the goalposts again. And I dont disagree with it. Evolved "morals" exist because they provided a survival advantage. And the even better morals refined by our cumulative knowledge exist because they are well reasoned and evidence based.

Some are worse though. Like slavery. Yes, some people reason that slavery is perfectly moral. Usually tjey use religion and magical horseshit as their first premise.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, introspective self awareness is a feature of human consciousness. Free will, in the sense of being active agents of our choices, is an illusion. You are a physical system, following all the same deterministic laws as any other.

Yes. That's the claim, anyway. I am absolutely free to be a slave of well ingrained patterns of behavior OR NOT as I choose. Of all the false and easily knocked down atheist arguments and dogma this is the most easily discarded.

 

[ding]

My point is that morals are effectively standards and they exist for a reason.

No, that's your NEW point, after moving the goalposts again. And I dont disagree with it. Evolved "morals" exist because they provided a survival advantage. And the even better morals refined by our cumulative knowledge exist because they are well reasoned and evidence based.

Some are worse though. Like slavery. Yes, some people reason that slavery is perfectly moral. Usually tjey use religion and magical horseshit as their first premise.

I didn't move the goalposts.

And I already addressed this here... 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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am absolutely free to be a slave of well ingrained patterns of behavior OR NOT as I choose

Hmm, no,not really. You may make choices that run contrary to your evolutionary hard wiring, but they are still the product of hard wiring put in place by your experiences in your life. As we now know, you make your choices before you are aware that you have made them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't move the goalposts.

Sure you did, 4 or 5 times,now.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man

That depends on how you mean that. If i write a code down, does it become independent? Ding, you are slippery and intentioanlly nebulous.

Are you asking if some sort of absolute moral code exists outside of man? Where would it exist, then? Remember, ypu first characterized it by saying it was a product of humans, who are qualittatively dofferent. Then you quickly changed lanes. And then did so again. So let's get your talking points in order.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Hmm, no,not really. You may make choices that run contrary to your evolutionary hard wiring, but they are still the product of hard wiring put in place by your experiences in your life. As we now know, you make your choices before you are aware that you have made them.

So if I eat a doughnut every day and one day decide I am ruining my health and stop that's not me choosing to stop? Bullshit!

I MAY make many choices on a subconscious level but not ALL my choices are
made that way. Have fun proving otherwise.