Moral relativism

[Into the Night]

I think you should live in accordance with your beliefs.

People already do.

You believe nothing is real but matter and energy,

He doesn't know what 'real' means. Neither do youj.

and you believe you are strictly programmed by scientific principles of Darwinian evolution.

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution.
Neither the Theory of Evolution nor Darwin are science.

In that case talking about morality is pointless. Moral duty is just a word and a philosophical concept derived from spiritual and religious belief.

The Theory of Evolution is a religious belief.

Your worldview should only be conceiving of behaviors and attributes insofar as they advantage the preservation and propagation of the genetic information of you and your kin group.

Genes do not create culture, Cyborg.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. Sure you do.



HOnestly you are being SO OBTUSE about that point that I have explained to you countless times I'm assuming you are being dishonest.

Vide supra about your beliefs and living in accordance with them. You clearly have no morality of your own.

He does. Everyone has moralities of their own. Cypress is no exception.

 

[Into the Night]

You have explained very clearly what you believe, but now maybe regret being so clear and want to walk it back.

You explicitly stated there is no absolute right and wrong, and that humans are no different than any other animal.

Since that is your worldview, try living it out.

Animals do not have moral beliefs. It's pointless for you to talk about morality. All you need to concern yourself with as an insignificant member of the animal world are behaviors insofar as they advantage the preservation and propagation of the genetic information of you and your kin.

There is no absolute 'right' and 'wrong'.
There are indications that many animals DO have moral beliefs.

 

[Into the Night]

In my opinion the best objection is if there is no absolute moral standard than any behavior is allowable and there is no legitimate reason to oppose it.

Not correct.
Although there are not absolute morals, each person has their own set of morals.
To violate your own set of morals is a legitimate reason to oppose it.

Slavery is a prime example.

Bad example.

Slavery was legal and accepted throughout much of the world, including the United States. Even the Bible mentions how you should treat your slaves. To those cultures at the time, it was perfectly moral to own slaves.

Human beings should not be bought and sold as chattel, not because you dont like it or because enough people oppose it but because human beings have more worth than property.

This argument is based on a presentism fallacy. Present day conditions do NOT declare conditions from the past.

You grew up without slaves, so to you, having slaves is immoral.
To people that grew up around slaves, it was perfectly moral to have slaves.

 

[Into the Night]

Lying is still wrong however even if you have a rational reason for doing it.

Paradox. Irrational. You can't declare something 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time!

It doesnt change what it is.

No one ever claimed it did.

When slavery was legal in America that didnt make it moral. It wasnt morally okie dokie to enslave people when it was legal.

Presentism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

No its not a contradiction and while you shouldnt lie there may be a situation where lying serves a greater moral purpose than not lying.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Just repeating your ex cathedra claims without actually understanding what has been explained to you countless times only makes you look more dense. It won't move the needle.

You are stuck with magical ideas being beamed into people's heads from invisible sky beings.

Not sure you are in a superior position in the argument.

I don't think he believes in your invisible sky beings, Murphy.

 

[Yakuda]

Not correct.
Although there are not absolute morals, each person has their own set of morals.
To violate your own set of morals is a legitimate reason to oppose it.


Bad example.

Slavery was legal and accepted throughout much of the world, including the United States. Even the Bible mentions how you should treat your slaves. To those cultures at the time, it was perfectly moral to own slaves.


This argument is based on a presentism fallacy. Present day conditions do NOT declare conditions from the past.

You grew up without slaves, so to you, having slaves is immoral.
To people that grew up around slaves, it was perfectly moral to have slaves.

I completely disagree with you.

 

[Yakuda]

Paradox. Irrational. You can't declare something 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time!

No one ever claimed it did.

Presentism fallacy.

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

 

[Yakuda]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

I'm not

 

[murph63]

You make a lot of assumptions there

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.

 

[Into the Night]

The morality of burning babies alive is not subjective and something just left to opinion and social convention.

Morals is not a verb, Cyborg.
It is open to social convention. Indeed, some cultures practiced this as a matter of their religion. To them, it was completely moral to do so.

There can be no compromise on this.

Face it. It happened, and the cultures that practiced it figured it was moral.

Burning babies alive is absolutely and objectively wrong for all time and place. The Cannanites and Carthaginians were absolutely and objectively wrong for burning babies and ritually sacrificing children.

...according to your morals.

 

[Into the Night]

I have no morals,I'm a sinner saved by Grace,paid for by the Blood of the Cross!

Everyone has morals. You just stated one.

 

[Into the Night]

I did not write a word claiming humans always and consistently follow their inner moral conscience. The moral conscience tells us what we ought to do, but free will gives us the ability to choose to do otherwise.

In other words, you are free to sin against your own morals.

 

[Into the Night]

"The Spirit is willing but the Flesh is weak"!

Random cliche.

 

[Into the Night]

Nobody really knows.

The answer is no.

Anyone who says they know is lying.

It is not a lie to describe morals.

Quarks and electrons do not have values,

Random phrase.

and that's what physically comprises our entire bodies.

Nope. You just described a dead person.

Beneficence, justice, veracity are immaterial abstract values that are not found in electrons, quarks, or the electro-chemical bonds of organic molecules. We don't really know why we perceive immaterial abstract values that aren't necessary for Darwinian evolution and survival.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad. Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

Take it up with the Israelites.

They haven't burned any babies, Murphy.

Is it therefore morally wrong if a wild dog kills the babies?

Who's morals?

As did the Israelites who murdered entire villages and slaughtered in the name of their God.

War is not murder, Murphy.

To bad the primary book that introduces us to the author of all morality characterizes him as being OK with that sort of thing.

The only author of your morals is you.

 

[Cypress]

Morals is not a verb, Cyborg.
It is open to social convention.

Burning babies alive is objectively wrong.

Indeed, some cultures practiced this as a matter of their religion.

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

To them, it was completely moral to do so.

At some level they knew what they were doing was abhorrent. The Cannanites would pound loud drums so they wouldn't have to hear the screams of burning babies.

The human conscience is able to be appealed to. That makes us different from the lower animals. . Burning babies and chattel slavery no longer openly practiced because human moral conscience is open to appeal.

 

[Into the Night]

Nor do they have thoughts but yet YOU HAVE THOUGHTS. Are those thoughts generated by physical matter? Or are you of the opinion that they are beamed into your head from God or whatever?



Emergent properties. The bane of the religious. Water molecules aren't "wet" but wetness arises from the assemblage and interaction thereof.

Word games. That won't work, Murphy.

 

[Into the Night]

Seemingly according to people like Cypress it is from on-high, beamed into our heads using magic rays.

What magic rays?