Where do moral laws come from?

[PK1]

Where do moral laws come from?

Moral "laws", or realistically, "moral behavior" comes from animals ... their need for survival, propagation, and their pursuit of "happiness".

 

[Iceweasel]

You answered with a deflection and think I'm stupid enough to let you jerk me around. You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I answered that already. Now it is your turn. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You never said where your standard came from. And as I have repeatedly pointed out that a glaring omission when you claim to have the standard.

I also explained that I am not letting you jerk me around. You threw a theory out that you can't back up, that isn't my problem.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You don't know what humility is. You are very familiar with arrogance however. YOUR thread asks where moral laws come from and you haven't said, 340 posts later.

Asking me a dumb question doesn't do it.

 

[rightwinger]

Science tells us that the physical laws of nature existed before space and time existed.

Pfft! Science tells us no such thing!

You're not even listening to what you're saying here. How can the "laws" of something exist before the thing the laws apply to exists? It's illogical.

Now, you can certainly have an illogical opinion. But please don't try to claim that Science supports your illogical opinion. That's offensive to those who respect the integrity of Science.

Physical laws of nature existed. Phisics, chemistry are constants

Do unto others did not come about until man formed societies

 

[ding]

I answered that already. Now it is your turn. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You never said where your standard came from. And as I have repeatedly pointed out that a glaring omission when you claim to have the standard.

I also explained that I am not letting you jerk me around. You threw a theory out that you can't back up, that isn't my problem.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You don't know what humility is. You are very familiar with arrogance however. YOUR thread asks where moral laws come from and you haven't said, 340 posts later.

Asking me a dumb question doesn't do it.

Actually it does do it. That's why you won't answer it.

 

[ding]

Science tells us that the physical laws of nature existed before space and time existed.

Pfft! Science tells us no such thing!

You're not even listening to what you're saying here. How can the "laws" of something exist before the thing the laws apply to exists? It's illogical.

Now, you can certainly have an illogical opinion. But please don't try to claim that Science supports your illogical opinion. That's offensive to those who respect the integrity of Science.

Physical laws of nature existed. Phisics, chemistry are constants

Do unto others did not come about until man formed societies

Sure, and those concepts existed at the beginning of space and time only to be realized when the time was right. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[ding]

Where do moral laws come from?

Moral "laws", or realistically, "moral behavior" comes from animals ... their need for survival, propagation, and their pursuit of "happiness".

Yes, that is correct. Except they didn't come from animals, they came from nature. The same nature that gave us the instinct to survive.

 

[rightwinger]

Science tells us that the physical laws of nature existed before space and time existed.

Pfft! Science tells us no such thing!

You're not even listening to what you're saying here. How can the "laws" of something exist before the thing the laws apply to exists? It's illogical.

Now, you can certainly have an illogical opinion. But please don't try to claim that Science supports your illogical opinion. That's offensive to those who respect the integrity of Science.

Physical laws of nature existed. Phisics, chemistry are constants

Do unto others did not come about until man formed societies

Sure, and those concepts existed at the beginning of space and time only to be realized when the time was right. Thanks for proving my point.

Logic from Bizarro World

Laws of Physics and Chemistry existed before man, therefore the laws of mankind existed before man

 

[ding]

Science tells us that the physical laws of nature existed before space and time existed.

Pfft! Science tells us no such thing!

You're not even listening to what you're saying here. How can the "laws" of something exist before the thing the laws apply to exists? It's illogical.

Now, you can certainly have an illogical opinion. But please don't try to claim that Science supports your illogical opinion. That's offensive to those who respect the integrity of Science.

Physical laws of nature existed. Phisics, chemistry are constants

Do unto others did not come about until man formed societies

Sure, and those concepts existed at the beginning of space and time only to be realized when the time was right. Thanks for proving my point.

Logic from Bizarro World

Laws of Physics and Chemistry existed before man, therefore the laws of mankind existed before man

Yes. That is why they are universal.

 

[Iceweasel]

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You never said where your standard came from. And as I have repeatedly pointed out that a glaring omission when you claim to have the standard.

I also explained that I am not letting you jerk me around. You threw a theory out that you can't back up, that isn't my problem.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You don't know what humility is. You are very familiar with arrogance however. YOUR thread asks where moral laws come from and you haven't said, 340 posts later.

Asking me a dumb question doesn't do it.

Actually it does do it. That's why you won't answer it.

You're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. While ignoring the fact that it can't prove morals existed before man.

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

 

[ding]

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You never said where your standard came from. And as I have repeatedly pointed out that a glaring omission when you claim to have the standard.

I also explained that I am not letting you jerk me around. You threw a theory out that you can't back up, that isn't my problem.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You don't know what humility is. You are very familiar with arrogance however. YOUR thread asks where moral laws come from and you haven't said, 340 posts later.

Asking me a dumb question doesn't do it.

Actually it does do it. That's why you won't answer it.

You're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. While ignoring the fact that it can't prove morals existed before man.

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Sure I can. All you have to do is answer the question that everyone knows the answer to. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

 

[Iceweasel]

You never said where your standard came from. And as I have repeatedly pointed out that a glaring omission when you claim to have the standard.

I also explained that I am not letting you jerk me around. You threw a theory out that you can't back up, that isn't my problem.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You don't know what humility is. You are very familiar with arrogance however. YOUR thread asks where moral laws come from and you haven't said, 340 posts later.

Asking me a dumb question doesn't do it.

Actually it does do it. That's why you won't answer it.

You're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. While ignoring the fact that it can't prove morals existed before man.

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Sure I can. All you have to do is answer the question that everyone knows the answer to. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You don't know what humility is. You are very familiar with arrogance however. YOUR thread asks where moral laws come from and you haven't said, 340 posts later.

Asking me a dumb question doesn't do it.

Actually it does do it. That's why you won't answer it.

You're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. While ignoring the fact that it can't prove morals existed before man.

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Sure I can. All you have to do is answer the question that everyone knows the answer to. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Then answer the question no and look like a fool.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

 

[Iceweasel]

You don't know what humility is. You are very familiar with arrogance however. YOUR thread asks where moral laws come from and you haven't said, 340 posts later.

Asking me a dumb question doesn't do it.

Actually it does do it. That's why you won't answer it.

You're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. While ignoring the fact that it can't prove morals existed before man.

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Sure I can. All you have to do is answer the question that everyone knows the answer to. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Then answer the question no and look like a fool.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

See above.

 

[ding]

Actually it does do it. That's why you won't answer it.

You're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. While ignoring the fact that it can't prove morals existed before man.

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Sure I can. All you have to do is answer the question that everyone knows the answer to. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Then answer the question no and look like a fool.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

See above.

Then I will mark you down as a no. Thanks for playing.

 

[Iceweasel]

You're repeating yourself. Over and over and over. While ignoring the fact that it can't prove morals existed before man.

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Sure I can. All you have to do is answer the question that everyone knows the answer to. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Then answer the question no and look like a fool.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

See above.

Then I will mark you down as a no. Thanks for playing.

I wasn't playing so you were playing with yourself. I answered it but you could not grasp it.

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

 

[ding]

Sure I can. All you have to do is answer the question that everyone knows the answer to. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Then answer the question no and look like a fool.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

See above.

Then I will mark you down as a no. Thanks for playing.

I wasn't playing so you were playing with yourself. I answered it but you could not grasp it.

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

If it makes you feel better to see it that way, go for it. Personally, I don't believe you are being objective. I don't know anyone who would disagree (other than you) that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness.

 

[Iceweasel]

Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright.

Then answer the question no and look like a fool.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

See above.

Then I will mark you down as a no. Thanks for playing.

I wasn't playing so you were playing with yourself. I answered it but you could not grasp it.

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

If it makes you feel better to see it that way, go for it. Personally, I don't believe you are being objective. I don't know anyone who would disagree (other than you) that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness.

My feelings have nothing to do with it. You can't understand ...

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

Nor can you begin to support how that makes your case.

 

[ding]

Then answer the question no and look like a fool.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

See above.

Then I will mark you down as a no. Thanks for playing.

I wasn't playing so you were playing with yourself. I answered it but you could not grasp it.

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

If it makes you feel better to see it that way, go for it. Personally, I don't believe you are being objective. I don't know anyone who would disagree (other than you) that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness.

My feelings have nothing to do with it. You can't understand ...

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

Why are you still explaining this to me? Who are you trying to convince?

 

[Iceweasel]

See above.

Then I will mark you down as a no. Thanks for playing.

I wasn't playing so you were playing with yourself. I answered it but you could not grasp it.

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

If it makes you feel better to see it that way, go for it. Personally, I don't believe you are being objective. I don't know anyone who would disagree (other than you) that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness.

My feelings have nothing to do with it. You can't understand ...

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

Why are you still explaining this to me? Who are you trying to convince?

Certainly not you. I'm here to make fun of you because you deserve it.

 

[ding]

Then I will mark you down as a no. Thanks for playing.

I wasn't playing so you were playing with yourself. I answered it but you could not grasp it.

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

If it makes you feel better to see it that way, go for it. Personally, I don't believe you are being objective. I don't know anyone who would disagree (other than you) that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness.

My feelings have nothing to do with it. You can't understand ...

"Plus the fact that "better outcomes" is entirely subjective. Lying can bring in much more money, that person might consider that a better outcome. You just are not terribly bright."

Why are you still explaining this to me? Who are you trying to convince?

Certainly not you. I'm here to make fun of you because you deserve it.

Then you must be one of those people who doesn't like being made fun of, otherwise, you wouldn't think it was effective. Me, I couldn't give two shits. I did my talking with logic. I'm happy enough to let others decide who they want to laugh at.