Establishing Secular Morality

[Larniavc]

Curious so g&gled... >> only two results

Malware Posing as AMD Radeon Graphics Drivers ...​

Reddit
https://www.reddit.com › Amd › comments › malware_...

Jan 15, 2023 — Luckily, when away from adblock I have an extreme and autonomous revulsion for any results with "ad" in it. Upvote 3. Downvote. Reply. u/mi7chy ...

Catalytic Narrative: February 2008​

Catalytic Narrative
https://www.catalyticnarrative.com › 2008/02

Feb 29, 2008 — After all, there were married couples here, alongside, say, me, who has acquired an apparently autonomous revulsion from ever re-entering ...

Quite so. In all of my graduate, post graduate and two decades of experience as a psychotherapist (CBT) I've never heard of autonomous revulsion in a clinical context (or any context for that matter). It sounds like psychobabble.

 

[Larniavc]

Notice you are referring to a different group than I posted about.
Rubbish to the world, the world which is not blameless.

Truth to the ones who are raised right, raised in the way they should go - rare, but still around even in this rubbish world of sin.

Due to the paucity of useful information in your post I'm unable to respond in a meaningful way.

 

[o_mlly]

So changes are natural when you exercise but changes are unnatural when you lie?

Yes.

No, the meal was delicious.
What a beautiful baby. ... So you don't tell the host that his Bolognese was inedible or the mother that you must have seen an uglier child, but you can't exactly remember when.

De gustibus non disputandum est,

 

[o_mlly]

Those same physiological reactions occur when one is excited. And compulsions are a normal part of human psychology. Again, in what way is it unnatural?

? No one posted that those reactions were exclusive to one who lies. Those physiological responses are measurable in the liar (who is not excited, engaged in a sex act, telling his wife he's getting a new car, etc. While it is true that some liars can suppress the changes and others who are not lying may express them, the reliability of a polygraph is not the issue. The exceptions are noted as exceptions, not the rule.

We are discussing compulsive gambling. See diagnostic code 2023 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code F63.0 Compulsive gambling disorder.

(I think this reply covers your subsequent posts as well on the matter.)

 

[Aaron112]

Kids are by far and away the easiest people to lie to.

And once they are indoctinated, and grow up never learning the honest truth, they are contributing to the ongoing lies all their lives, a widespread reality in every area of life/ commerce/ medicine/ politics/ religion and so on...

 

[Aaron112]

So changes are natural when you exercise but changes are unnatural when you lie?

Awkward English.
Changes when someone lies are sometimes if not unaware of it and even though it gives them away in their lies, they don't try to control the changes or they cannot.
The changes when being honest in any activity or speech, can be imitated of course... but usually not completely.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your posts contradict each other. Either all morality is objective and human beings do not have a moral right to associate or they do. So I asked you to clarify your position.

My position is that the "moral right to associate" is not relevant. I have no idea what you are talking about with the "moral right to associate", nor do I have any clue why you brought it into this conversation. Whatever it is you are talking about, it is but a single question in a large landscape of moral questions.

I've yet to see a moral claim that is not an opinion of some sort, therefore all moral claims I have ever heard are subjective.

 

[Aaron112]

consistent with the idea that morality is subjective.

Thus the world's view, opposed to Jesus and not in line with God's Word and Plan and Purpose.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans and I were way past that silliness. You have a preconceived opinion that morality is subjective but will not or cannot defend your position.

Since this is in part a proxy for a continuation of our conversation I was too busy to engage in and you mention me I will respond.

If I had any preconceived notion about morality it was that it was objective or authoritative (imposed by god). It was only through consideration of things that I came to the conclusion that morality was subjective.

 

[Aaron112]

natural to all human beings as opposed to the unnatural habits of a few, eg., the tendency to gamble, to smoke, to lie, etc.

As questioned a little bit ago, those things and far worse things are natural habits of mankind,
not unnatural nor even resisted necessarily , unless someone is redeemed from the sinful nature of man.

 

[o_mlly]

My position is that the "moral right to associate" is not relevant.

You already agreed that the moral right to associate is reasonable:.

o_mlly:​

I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.​

​

Hans Blaster:​

Seems reasonable so far​

​

What is relevant is that you also claim, in contradiction, that all morality is subjective.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the "moral right to associate", nor do I have any clue why you brought it into this conversation. Whatever it is you are talking about, it is but a single question in a large landscape of moral questions.

Sudden amnesia in a rocket surgeon could be quite dangerous. Having already walked you through the steps that got us here, I see no purpose to do it again.

One should always be careful in claiming a universal, as you have, since just one observation to the contrary obliterates the claim.

Perhaps unwittingly, but honestly, you have already agreed that all morality is not subjective. If you now plead ignorance and are unwilling to admit your previous concurrence to an objective moral claim then I'd be wasting my time taking you further down the path as to the truth in other objective moral issues.

I've yet to see a moral claim that is not an opinion of some sort, therefore all moral claims I have ever heard are subjective.

Wow. Do you not see the logical error in the above? (Except for the moral right to associate,) you now claim that every (other) moral claim is but an opinion and, therefore, your opinion that every other moral claim is merely opinion is somehow magically elevated to be a scientific fact.

 

[o_mlly]

It was only through consideration of things that I came to the conclusion that morality was subjective.

What might those "things" be?

 

[o_mlly]

As questioned a little bit ago, those things and far worse things are natural habits of mankind,
not unnatural nor even resisted necessarily , unless someone is redeemed from the sinful nature of man.

As Catholics, we believe that what is natural to man are only those inclinations in God's idea of man, ie., man before the Fall. When man rebelled against Nature, he acquired unnatural inclinations.

 

[Larniavc]

I think this reply covers your subsequent posts as well on the matter.

No it does not. Your claim about lying being unnatural is unsupported by anything you have written.

 

[Larniavc]

And once they are indoctinated, and grow up never learning the honest truth, they are contributing to the ongoing lies all their lives, a widespread reality in every area of life/ commerce/ medicine/ politics/ religion and so on...

How is that relevant to your claim that "well brought up" kids can detect lies?

 

[Larniavc]

Changes when someone lies are sometimes if not unaware of it and even though it gives them away in their lies, they don't try to control the changes or they cannot.

Rubbish. You are making it up.

 

[Aaron112]

As Catholics, we believe that what is natural to man are only those inclinations in God's idea of man, ie., man before the Fall. When man rebelled against Nature, he acquired unnatural inclinations.

Thus, a lot of errors. Widespread after the Fall.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You already agreed that the moral right to associate is reasonable:.

o_mlly:​

I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.​

​

Hans Blaster:​

Seems reasonable so far​

​

I skimmed though some text with minimal relevance to our conversation and didn't spot anything objectionable so I gave the polite nod of non-disagreement. The first two of your sentences are clearly true. As for the third, I didn't know what "moral right to associate" was or what it had to do with our conversation so I gave you the polite brush off ("OK, fine, whatever.."). Since you are going to take that wrong I won't do it any more. I will either cut out such irrelevances or respond with a "off topic" "not interested" or similar.

What is relevant is that you also claim, in contradiction, that all morality is subjective.

Since I don't know what you are talking about with "moral right to associate" or what it has to do with anything, I can hardly contradict myself because of it.

Sudden amnesia in a rocket surgeon could be quite dangerous.

I am not feigning ignorance, so don't imply it.

Having already walked you through the steps that got us here, I see no purpose to do it again.

And I've just told you I don't know what your "moral right to associate" off-topic diversion is about (again).

One should always be careful in claiming a universal, as you have, since just one observation to the contrary obliterates the claim.

Perhaps unwittingly, but honestly, you have already agreed that all morality is not subjective.

I have not. You misunderstand.

If you now plead ignorance and are unwilling to admit your previous concurrence to an objective moral claim then I'd be wasting my time taking you further down the path as to the truth in other objective moral issues.

I spoke about (near, but recognizable) universals in human behavior (collective activity) and emotion (like empathy), but those are only the strata on which morality is built (or in cases needed) so it must be constructed. That doesn't make the chosen morals "objective".

Wow. Do you not see the logical error in the above?

Did you use a syllogism while I didn't notice?

(Except for the moral right to associate,) you now claim that every (other) moral claim is but an opinion and, therefore, your opinion that every other moral claim is merely opinion is somehow magically elevated to be a scientific fact.

If you want to keep talking about the "moral right to associate" you're going to have to clarify what you mean and why it matters. Otherwise I'll snip out all of those bits in any future reply.

 

[Aaron112]

How is that relevant to your claim that "well brought up" kids can detect lies?

Note: Not "well brought up" - that is very variable in society/ discussion/ different places and times.
They might never know.

"Raised in the way they should be " is Biblical, Correct in reality, truth, morals (not worldly 'Christianity') , but the way God Says is Correct, daily, in all ways. i.e.

especially in truth. They learn from all their life not to lie, and not to believe lies but to trust the Creator in all things and give Him Praise and with Thanksgiving all the time , in Him.
He directly protects His little ones from the liar and father of lies, the devil, and from liars and thieves and murderers. As is written. Not at all as mankind thinks nor as mankind believes.

 

[o_mlly]

No it does not. Your claim about lying being unnatural is unsupported by anything you have written.

Of course it was but apparently not to your satisfaction. I take it I resolved your objection to compulsive gambling as being unnatural.

It was inaccurate to write that the one who speaks a lie feels "revulsion"; it is the listener when he learns he's has been told a lie. As to the liar's autonomic response:

Can You Catch a Liar? How Negative Emotions Affect Brain Responses when Lying or Telling the Truth

The capacity to deceive others is a complex mental skill that requires the ability to suppress truthful information. The polygraph is widely used in countries such as the USA to detect deception. However, little is known about the effects of emotional ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

When we lie (i.e., deliberately utter a falsehood with the intention to deceive), our brain arousal level is increased because of a catecholaminic response that is triggered by the Autonomic Nervous System. This system is also responsible for other body changes that can be detected easily by lie detector tests, including voice modulation, which can be detected via “voice stress analyzers” [1]; pupil mydriasis; increases in respiratory and cardiac frequency; and skin conductance changes (electrodermal response).

Since we're not in a science form but rather in the Ethic and Morality forum and the thread is "Establishing Secular Morality", I'll agree with you that, unfortunately, in the secular ethics textbook that lying is natural and, therefore, morally permissible.

BTW: Some think that all psychology is psychobabble.