- Thread starter
- #101
I feel sorry for you.Perhaps plug your ears and read ding's posts more carefully.Perhaps listen more carefully.
And it's no mystery you appreciate his behavior and tactics, as you share them.
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.
I feel sorry for you.Perhaps plug your ears and read ding's posts more carefully.Perhaps listen more carefully.
And it's no mystery you appreciate his behavior and tactics, as you share them.
Correct, they are. That is why they are best defined by reason and empirical knowledge, instead of gut feelings, old religious myths, and cultural trends.Morals can be anything we want them to be.
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.
Is because you can't understand the simplicity of moral.That's not always a good tenet, as stated. How much"good"? If I told you that, if you kill your neighbors kid, I will give every person on Earth a dollar...you would defer to this tenet?The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
It's too simple. It must be defined and examined in each case. Therefore, it is definitely not an objectively good addition to the moral landscape, at all times, as stated.
Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.Actually you didn’t.And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.I addressed this in the OP.
Yes, that pretty much makes everyone on the board. You troll like an old lady on barbiturates.I feel sorry for you.
I already responded. You ignored it.Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.Actually you didn’t.And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.I addressed this in the OP.
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are projecting.Yes, that pretty much makes everyone on the board. You troll like an old lady on barbiturates.I feel sorry for you.
A, a classic ding tautologyI already responded. You ignored it.Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.Actually you didn’t.And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.I addressed this in the OP.
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.
Clearly there is no objective set of moral laws , in reality or in fantasy. Morality is a subjective collection of genetics, experience, personality, knowledge, and various other factors (like, chemical enhancement).
That’s a non answer. You side stepped the question.A, a classic ding tautologyI already responded. You ignored it.Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.Actually you didn’t.And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.I addressed this in the OP.
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.
Humans would all act the same, if they had no personalities or sentience. And, of course, just to sprinkle some magical nonsense on it: they would all act according to divine, moral laws.
What utter nonsense
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.
And the OP addressed that.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.
Got to cut you off right there, without bothering with the rest. Morals ARE what we want them to be. It's what we all agree is reasonable as a society.
In Bible Times, they burned witches and owned slaves. God endorsed it in the bible as being okay. And we kept doing that for centuries.
Then we figured out there were no real witches (sorry, Wiccans!) and people owning other people was wrong. God didn't change his mind, we changed ours.
And the OP addressed that.
You should have kept reading.
Be that as it may, the OP has already addressed this.And the OP addressed that.
You should have kept reading.
Nope, I was done after two sentences... There is no "Absolute" morality. There is what is acceptable to a society at a given time in history.. . that's it.
Be that as it may, the OP has already addressed this.
How would you know? You stopped reading it.Be that as it may, the OP has already addressed this.
No, it really didn't.
In fact, we don't know what "moral law" was before recorded history. Human beings - Homo Sapiens Sapiens, for those who are into science instead of superstition, have existed for 250,000 years. We have less than 6000 years of recorded history, but most of that doesn't even indicate a "moral law". quite the opposite.
How would you know? You stopped reading it.
So you are admitting that you didn’t read it all, but believe you know it didn’t address your point?How would you know? You stopped reading it.
Because when you start out with a dumb claim that morality comes from an invisible sky pixie, the rest doesn't really matter.