Where do moral laws come from?

[Iceweasel]

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.

You hate me pointing out the glaring hole in your theory. It's angered you to the point of chanting nonsense. A grade schooler can blow holes in it. The fact that morality exists in its' subjective forms does not demonstrate it existed before mankind. It doesn't make sense even when it is explained. That's a special kind of stupid.

 

[ding]

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.

You hate me pointing out the glaring hole in your theory. It's angered you to the point of chanting nonsense. A grade schooler can blow holes in it. The fact that morality exists in its' subjective forms does not demonstrate it existed before mankind. It doesn't make sense even when it is explained. That's a special kind of stupid.

That's all in your head.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You hate me pointing out the glaring hole in your theory. It's angered you to the point of chanting nonsense. A grade schooler can blow holes in it. The fact that morality exists in its' subjective forms does not demonstrate it existed before mankind. It doesn't make sense even when it is explained. That's a special kind of stupid.

That's all in your head.

Too bad you don't have one.

 

[ding]

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.

You hate me pointing out the glaring hole in your theory. It's angered you to the point of chanting nonsense. A grade schooler can blow holes in it. The fact that morality exists in its' subjective forms does not demonstrate it existed before mankind. It doesn't make sense even when it is explained. That's a special kind of stupid.

That's all in your head.

Too bad you don't have one.

Given that you are the one who is still arguing it, I'd say your actions say otherwise.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You hate me pointing out the glaring hole in your theory. It's angered you to the point of chanting nonsense. A grade schooler can blow holes in it. The fact that morality exists in its' subjective forms does not demonstrate it existed before mankind. It doesn't make sense even when it is explained. That's a special kind of stupid.

That's all in your head.

Too bad you don't have one.

Given that you are the one who is still arguing it, I'd say your actions say otherwise.

How is that an answer to:
"Too bad you don't have one."

My actions say you have a head? You are reduced to babbling.

 

[ding]

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.

You hate me pointing out the glaring hole in your theory. It's angered you to the point of chanting nonsense. A grade schooler can blow holes in it. The fact that morality exists in its' subjective forms does not demonstrate it existed before mankind. It doesn't make sense even when it is explained. That's a special kind of stupid.

That's all in your head.

Too bad you don't have one.

Given that you are the one who is still arguing it, I'd say your actions say otherwise.

How is that an answer to:
"Too bad you don't have one."

My actions say you have a head? You are reduced to babbling.

Do you know how you can tell when someone is butt hurt? They keep fighting, like you are doing.

 

[Iceweasel]

You hate me pointing out the glaring hole in your theory. It's angered you to the point of chanting nonsense. A grade schooler can blow holes in it. The fact that morality exists in its' subjective forms does not demonstrate it existed before mankind. It doesn't make sense even when it is explained. That's a special kind of stupid.

That's all in your head.

Too bad you don't have one.

Given that you are the one who is still arguing it, I'd say your actions say otherwise.

How is that an answer to:
"Too bad you don't have one."

My actions say you have a head? You are reduced to babbling.

Do you know how you can tell when someone is butt hurt? They keep fighting, like you are doing.

It's OK for you to post but not me? See? That's what I've been saying, not too bright. Instead of backing up your OP you prefer to change the subject and make it personal. What's your best piece of evidence morality existed before mankind other than me being butthurt?

 

[ding]

That's all in your head.

Too bad you don't have one.

Given that you are the one who is still arguing it, I'd say your actions say otherwise.

How is that an answer to:
"Too bad you don't have one."

My actions say you have a head? You are reduced to babbling.

Do you know how you can tell when someone is butt hurt? They keep fighting, like you are doing.

It's OK for you to post but not me? See? That's what I've been saying, not too bright. Instead of backing up your OP you prefer to change the subject and make it personal. What's your best piece of evidence morality existed before mankind other than me being butthurt?

Post away dude, no one is stopping you. You want to keep arguing about this be my guest. You clearly still feel a need to try to convince me. I don't. I have already proven my point. If I didn't think I did, I will still be arguing too.

 

[Iceweasel]

Too bad you don't have one.

Given that you are the one who is still arguing it, I'd say your actions say otherwise.

How is that an answer to:
"Too bad you don't have one."

My actions say you have a head? You are reduced to babbling.

Do you know how you can tell when someone is butt hurt? They keep fighting, like you are doing.

It's OK for you to post but not me? See? That's what I've been saying, not too bright. Instead of backing up your OP you prefer to change the subject and make it personal. What's your best piece of evidence morality existed before mankind other than me being butthurt?

Post away dude, no one is stopping you. You want to keep arguing about this be my guest. You clearly still feel a need to try to convince me. I don't. I have already proven my point. If I didn't think I did, I will still be arguing too.

"Instead of backing up your OP you prefer to change the subject and make it personal. What's your best piece of evidence morality existed before mankind other than me being butthurt?"

 

[ding]

Given that you are the one who is still arguing it, I'd say your actions say otherwise.

How is that an answer to:
"Too bad you don't have one."

My actions say you have a head? You are reduced to babbling.

Do you know how you can tell when someone is butt hurt? They keep fighting, like you are doing.

It's OK for you to post but not me? See? That's what I've been saying, not too bright. Instead of backing up your OP you prefer to change the subject and make it personal. What's your best piece of evidence morality existed before mankind other than me being butthurt?

Post away dude, no one is stopping you. You want to keep arguing about this be my guest. You clearly still feel a need to try to convince me. I don't. I have already proven my point. If I didn't think I did, I will still be arguing too.

"Instead of backing up your OP you prefer to change the subject and make it personal. What's your best piece of evidence morality existed before mankind other than me being butthurt?"

If you think you have won, why are you still arguing?

 

[Boss]

The best explanation for how the universe began....

Let me stop you here. You stated that "Science tells us..." and now you are saying "the best explanation is..." Do you see the difference?

Science doesn't KNOW. There are various theories. I personally think all of them are problematic without consideration of spiritual energy because things can't create themselves. Physical nature cannot have created physical nature.

Why would moral laws be any different than physical laws. They both govern the evolution of matter. The latter govern the evolution of consciousness the former govern the evolution of physical matter.

If you will answer my simple question of "Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?" then I hopefully will be able to explain this even better.

Okay, first of all, "consciousness" isn't matter. Morals aren't necessarily "evolution" of consciousness. In fact, in most societies the morals naturally decline over time. Look at our own morals, we're nothing like we were in the 1950s morally.

As for your question about qualities, those are things that cannot be measured. Yes, generally speaking, people who are thankful, humble and forgiving have better outcomes than people who are hateful and vindictive. But there's no way to measure those things and they are highly subjective, not to mention, most people are a mixture of all those things at times.

Again, I am a spiritualist who believes we are inclined toward good and away from evil, toward positive and away from negative, toward the light and away from the dark. This is perhaps the reason we develop morals. That's about as close as I can come to agreeing with your overall premise. I don't believe there is one universal moral truth that we are all naturally evolving toward or that this existed before time and space. I can appreciate that is your opinion but that doesn't make it a fact of science. Neither is my opinion, for that matter.

On a side note; I was thinking about the age of consent argument we were having earlier... Why is it considered different when a 17 year-old boy has a sexual relationship with a 30 year-old woman... than when a 30 year-old man has a sexual relationship with a 17 year-old girl? You can say they are both "morally wrong" but they are certainly not considered "morally equivalent." It seems to me if Ding's Laws of Universal Moral Truths were valid, these would be morally equivalent.

 

[ding]

Okay, first of all, "consciousness" isn't matter. Morals aren't necessarily "evolution" of consciousness. In fact, in most societies the morals naturally decline over time. Look at our own morals, we're nothing like we were in the 1950s morally.

Before there was matter there was consciousness. As a spiritual person you should be able to relate. From this consciousness sprang space and time according to the laws of nature created by this consciousness. The purpose was to create consciousness (i.e. beings that know and create). Assuming all this is true, physical and moral laws were already in place to achieve the purpose of creating beings that know and create (i.e. consciousness). Our consciousness is evolving to a higher state because of those laws which is why there are consequences to practicing failed behaviors and rewards for practicing successful behaviors. I don't mind having these conversations but it is getting old having to repeat things I have already written. So at some point we will just have to agree to disagree. Fair enough?

As for your question about qualities, those are things that cannot be measured. Yes, generally speaking, people who are thankful, humble and forgiving have better outcomes than people who are hateful and vindictive. But there's no way to measure those things and they are highly subjective, not to mention, most people are a mixture of all those things at times.

That's because they are universal moral laws.

On a side note; I was thinking about the age of consent argument we were having earlier... Why is it considered different when a 17 year-old boy has a sexual relationship with a 30 year-old woman... than when a 30 year-old man has a sexual relationship with a 17 year-old girl? You can say they are both "morally wrong" but they are certainly not considered "morally equivalent." It seems to me if Ding's Laws of Universal Moral Truths were valid, these would be morally equivalent.

First of all its not my moral laws, they are the laws of nature; the law of right and wrong; the moral law, etc. It has been written into our hearts and as long as we don't rationalize them away, we all know the difference between right and wrong.

They are both morally wrong and morally equivalent. The issue here is an older more mature person taking advantage of a younger less mature person. Are there exceptions to this? Probably. So what? It does not negate the standard of conduct. If you believe there is something wrong with our society as I do, then look no further than people lowering their standard of conduct from the moral law and latching onto moral relativism to rationalize away right and wrong as the root cause.

 

[BreezeWood]

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

What didn't I answer?

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

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?

.

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

your problem is you do not understand the above can be accomplished be either good or evil.

 

[ding]

What didn't I answer?

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

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?

.

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

your problem is you do not understand the above can be accomplished be either good or evil.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

 

[BreezeWood]

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?

.

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

your problem is you do not understand the above can be accomplished be either good or evil.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

as evidenced, that also is above your head.

 

[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?

.

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

your problem is you do not understand the above can be accomplished be either good or evil.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

as evidenced, that also is above your head.

I don't believe it is. Darkness is not extant. Cold is not extant. Neither is evil.

 

[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".

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.

Yes, moral rules are natural, as are animals & their adaptive behavioral patterns.

 

[PK1]

Okay, first of all, "consciousness" isn't matter. Morals aren't necessarily "evolution" of consciousness.

I believe "consciousness" is matter.
Do you know of any consciousness without neurons?
.

 

[PK1]

Before there was matter there was consciousness.

You know that how?
Or, are you making up stuff/definitions to suit your fancy/fantasy?
.

 

[BreezeWood]

Okay, first of all, "consciousness" isn't matter. Morals aren't necessarily "evolution" of consciousness.

I believe "consciousness" is matter.
Do you know of any consciousness without neurons?
.

.

Do you know of any consciousness without neurons?

ALERT - another Flora hater ....