The moral law

[ding]

Perhaps listen more carefully.

Perhaps plug your ears and read ding's posts more carefully.

And it's no mystery you appreciate his behavior and tactics, as you share them.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[ding]

Morals can be anything we want them to be.

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.

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.

 

[luchitociencia]

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

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?

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.

Is because you can't understand the simplicity of moral.

Preservation of the integrity of the individual, the family, the society, the species, such is moral.

You kill others, that is unmoral.

You steal from others, that is unmoral.

You kill babies thru abortion, that is unmoral.

You let another man to make you suffer while he introduces his sexual organ thru your anus, that is unmoral.

Everything that goes against the integrity of the individual is unmoral.

Send to death penalty to a murderer is to prevent him to continue hurting the integrity of families and society, and that is not unmoral.


Got it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I addressed this in the OP.

And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.

Actually you didn’t.

Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I feel sorry for you.

Yes, that pretty much makes everyone on the board. You troll like an old lady on barbiturates.

 

[ding]

I addressed this in the OP.

And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.

Actually you didn’t.

Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.

I already responded. You ignored it.

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.

 

[ding]

I feel sorry for you.

Yes, that pretty much makes everyone on the board. You troll like an old lady on barbiturates.

You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are projecting.

you are gay, aren’t you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I addressed this in the OP.

And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.

Actually you didn’t.

Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.

I already responded. You ignored it.

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.

A, a classic ding tautology

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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).

This is obvious in the fact that we have spent 100,000 years improving it, and we continue to work hard to do so.

Clearly, as has been shown true in all aspects of knowledge, a more scientific approach to morality is desirable. Base morality on human well being (not iron aged, selfish fantasies of special status or eternal life), and better moral landscapes will arise.

Look to iron aged myths, and what you get is ignorant, iron aged nonsense. Look to make objective ideas of human well being, and better outcomes will result

 

[luchitociencia]

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).

You really don't know what are you talking about.

Definitively you live in an obstinate ignorance.

Morality is more related to "care" than to chemical enhancement.

"Chemical enhancement"... lol... give me a break...

 

[ding]

I addressed this in the OP.

And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.

Actually you didn’t.

Sure did. No, I don't expect you for a second to fashion any coherent response, other than to whine. Don't worry.

I already responded. You ignored it.

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.

A, a classic ding tautology

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

That’s a non answer. You side stepped the question.

The reason I asked is that it would explain your truculent behaviors towards Christians.

Do I need to review transactional analysis with you again?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[ding]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[ding]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[ding]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[sparky]

the usual free will debate mired in cyclical logic then....?

~S~

 

[ding]

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.

So you are admitting that you didn’t read it all, but believe you know it didn’t address your point?