Moral relativism

[Into the Night]

Descartes said we are born with the idea of God in our mind.

Not surprising, since he was Catholic.

 

[Into the Night]

That's just a vague fancy bullshit term which covers up the fact we do no really know how and why conciousness, abstract values, subjective mental experience comes from three pounds of gray matter made from inanimate quarks and electrons.

The proper scientific response is to admit ignorance, rather than bullshit your way through.

No science here...move along...move along...

 

[Into the Night]

Abstract values are not physical.

What is an 'abstract value', Hugo?

Values are what is valued.

What values, Hugo?

Again, you seem to be concerned your God is denied if humans decide for themselves how to live.

Humans decide for themselves how to live, regardless of whether any god or gods exists.

 

[Into the Night]

except I gave you a very real world example. I can understand (it was a chemistry example which probably went over your head).

You never mentioned any chemical reaction.

I don't see why you always special plead.

Fallacy fallacy.

For some reason countless emergent properties are known to exist in reality

Buzzword fallacies. Magick Words (emergent property, reality).

but Cypress has decreed that the mental state CANNOT BE ONE.

Never saw any such statement. Care to elucidate?

So when you dont' know something you assume it is from a supernatural source?

That does seem to be his mode of thinking.

too bad you never do so.

Nonsense response to a nonsense statement.

 

[Into the Night]

Derision and disdain are not consistent with practicing the Golden Rule, which you are always claiming humans are just naturally predisposed towards practicing by evolution.

I never wrote a word about magic beams. Everything seems to be internal. The brain is a biological substrate for the mind, for conciousness, for subjective experience, for transcendent values.

I find that when a poster gets angry and has to resort to derision and disdain, it means my comments are scoring direct hits.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The question is, if morals are not biological, what are they?

RQAA. Morals are you own set of core rules based on your beliefs.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not

Denying a paradox does not clear it. You must utterly discard one of the conflicting arguments. That is the only way.
Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

The fact of the matter is that this arbitrary "kin limit" that @Cypress is so animated by doesn't really limit itself to just those people with whom you share genetic material. Yes that is the definition of "kin" but for a social animal we have to make alliances with OTHER non-kin animals.

I know if and when Cypress gets married it will likely be to a cousin, so keeping within his kin group, but for the rest of us we expand our relationships to groups OUTSIDE of our genetic pod.

Social animals don't just hang with their own genetic copies. They work in a larger network.

It is that "social network" that forms the stable society and within that network safety is paramount. If one member of a city starts killing people but not their own kin, the society can and must stop that behavior as it endangers the larger network.

The fact that all of this is manifestly obvious in the physical world without the need to rely on supernatural transcendent things from outside space and time is how science works.

Science is not a religion, Murphy.

 

[Into the Night]

Burning babies alive is objectively wrong.

No object, so no objective.
...according to your set of morals.

Because humans have free will, they can choose to do evil.

Repetition fallacy. You already said this. Morals of that individual decide what is 'evil'.

At some level they knew what they were doing was abhorrent.

So? Morals of that individual decide what is 'evil'.

The Cannanites would pound loud drums so they wouldn't have to hear the screams of burning babies.

Irrelevance fallacy.

The human conscience is able to be appealed to.

Nope. You are either conscious or you are not.

That makes us different from the lower animals.

What do you consider a 'higher' or 'lower' animal??

Burning babies and chattel slavery no longer openly practiced because human moral conscience is open to appeal.

Nope. You are either conscious or you are not.
Babies are still burned today.
Slavery still exists today, even in the United States (illegally).

 

[Into the Night]

I completely disagree with you.

Specifics?

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't declare anything right or wrong at the same time. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about

Don't try to deny your own posts. Which is it, dude?

 

[Cypress]

No object, so no objective.
...according to your set of morals.

Repetition fallacy. You already said this. Morals of that individual decide what is 'evil'.

So? Morals of that individual decide what is 'evil'.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Nope. You are either conscious or you are not.

What do you consider a 'higher' or 'lower' animal??

Nope. You are either conscious or you are not.
Babies are still burned today.
Slavery still exists today, even in the United States (illegally).

I don't buy your moral relativist bullshit that burning babies alive was certainly moral depending on the society or culture.

(Burning babies) is open to social convention. The cultures that practiced it figured it was moral.

Burning babies alive was always absolutely wrong and will always be objectively wrong.

The fact that some people chose to do evil doesn't change that.

It seems even some of the Cannanites did not want to hear the babies scream as they burned.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't buy your moral relativist bullshit that burning babies alive was certainly moral depending on the society or culture.

It is completely dependent on the culture and those living it.
You don't get to impose your morals on anybody else.

Burning babies alive was always absolutely wrong and will always be objectively wrong.

...according to your morals. No object, therefore no objective value. A moral is not a number. A baby is not a number.

The fact that some people chose to do evil doesn't change that.

...according to your morals.

It seems even some of the Cannanites did not want to hear the babies scream as they burned.

Irrelevance fallacy.

 

[murph63]

You never mentioned any chemical reaction.

I mentioned water and the concept of wetness. This is a concept in chemistry related to surface energy.

Learn some science, cleetus.

 

[Into the Night]

I mentioned water and the concept of wetness. This is a concept in chemistry related to surface energy.

Learn some science, cleetus.

Not chemistry or science.
Neither chemistry nor science are based on subjective descriptions.

Subjective descriptions like 'wet', 'dry', 'hot', 'cold', 'bright', 'dark', or 'climate' have absolutely nothing to do with science or chemistry.

I happen to be a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and pyrochemistry.
I also happen to be a scientist, specializing in aerodynamics, weather, hydraulics and pneumatics, electronics, and the history of theories of science.
I also happen to be an engineer, designing, flying, breaking, and building and repairing aircraft, aircraft systems and engine design and maintenance, avionics, designing sensor systems, and designing computers for industrial uses.
I also happen to study etymology.

Whether you believe my credentials or not is your decision, but you cannot redefine science or chemistry.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That means you must be able to test that theory directly, using specific tests, each producing a specific result. In other words, science is always about objective tests designed to destroy theories. As long as a theory withstands such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will continue to be so until and only if the theory is falsified.

Chemistry is a branch of science, and like science, is made up of falsifiable theories.

When a theory of science is transcribed into mathematics or logic, it is called a 'law'. Such a transcription into a closed functional system provides the power of prediction inherent in closed functional systems. For example: F=mA, or Newton's 1st law of motion, predicts that a force may be calculated for a given mass under a given acceleration, or what the mass is for a given force and acceleration, or what the acceleration is for a given force and mass.

This relation is a theory of science, since it is falsifiable. If any condition is found where this relation fails, it will be falsified. The theory and it's law will simply cease to exist.

So far this relation has held true.

That does not prove the theory true. It only means the theory has not yet been falsified. It might never be falsified, but that too is not a proof. You will find that a proof is not possible in an open functional system.

Subjective descriptions have no values associated with them. There is no equation for them. There is no objectivity for them.
'Wet' has no value associated with it. It is simply a subjective description and nothing more.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Random cliche.

I was quoting Jesus!

 

[Hume]

Burning babies alive was always absolutely wrong and will always be objectively wrong.

How are the two sentences different: "Burning babies alive was always absolutely wrong."
And, "Burning babies alive was always wrong."

 

[Hume]

"Burning babies alive is objectively wrong."

"Burning babies alive is wrong."

What is the difference?

 

[Matt Dillon]

Already did. Ancient Greeks did not use God to justify morality. Aristotle's "Ethics" has no reference to God. And that text is still taught in universities today.

Ethical compared to what?

 

[Hume]

Ethical compared to what?

Not sure what you mean. Ethical as how people act.