When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

Why does one need moral authority? Surely the only moral authority we need is our own subjective ethical framework?

Once again it's YOUR subjective ethical framework. What gives you the right to subject on others your own subjective ethical framework. What authority do you carry to make those decisions?

 

[Bradskii]

Once again it's YOUR subjective ethical framework. What gives you the right to subject on others your own subjective ethical framework. What authority do you carry to make those decisions?

Again, we don't have, or rarely have the right to impose our beliefs on others. But we are free to determine if we consider their actions moral or immoral. Just as you decided that an act was abhorrent. Everyone has that right.

And yet again, saying that someone has that right to determine if what they do is immoral or not is not in any way agreeing with their decision. So nonsensical questions such as 'Well if the Nazis thought it was ok for them then how can you argue against them?' are just that. Nonsensical.

But you be sure to let me know if anyone says they can't. I'll have to have a word with them.

 

[rjs330]

Again, we don't have, or rarely have the right to impose our beliefs on others.

And yet we do it all the time. In fact this whole forum is filled with people who think it's perfectly fine to do that.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And yet we do it all the time. In fact this whole forum is filled with people who think it's perfectly fine to do that.

And they are tiresome. Are they not? As well as ineffective. I wonder, has one opinion ever been changed here?

The best any of can really do is clearly and fully articulate our own belief. then maybe another might see out light.

 

[Bradskii]

And yet we do it all the time. In fact this whole forum is filled with people who think it's perfectly fine to do that.

We can try to convince people that our opinions are the correct ones. You do that. I do that. We all do that. That, in fact, is what a forum is for. That's what this thread is for.

Now whether we can muster enough fellow travellers to either write or change a law that will reflect our personal opinions and force others to accept them...well, that's another matter entirely. But we already have in regard to honour killings. It's against the law. So in that specific case we are imposing our beliefs on others. And you completely agree. But perhaps you think we shouldn't do it if it goes against your personal beliefs...

So back to what you asked. Yes, I have the right to tell you what my opinion is, why I hold to it, and why your position is wrong. You have that right as well. And you exercise it frequently in this forum. So don't give me any bulldust questions about 'who says that you have that right?'

 

[rjs330]

And they are tiresome. Are they not? As well as ineffective. I wonder, has one opinion ever been changed here?

The best any of can really do is clearly and fully articulate our own belief. then maybe another might see out light.

You know I've been thinking about this lately. I don't see opinions changed much. We all come here with our own world views and if we were to accept someone else's views we would have to change our worldview. People are so vested in it. Particularly on forums like this.

 

[Kylie]

There's nothing about scientific data that compels a person to be a materialist. There are always other possible interpretations of the data.

And do those interpretations of the data allow us to make predictions about what should happen if that particular interpretation is true?

I mean, if we have data A, B and C, we could interpret as Interpretation 1 or interpretation 2.

Then we say, "Interpretation 1 implies X, and interpretation 2 implies Y."

Then you go out and see if you find X or Y. So you can put the different interpretations to the test and see what reality indicates.

And if both interpretations imply the exact same thing, then you go with Occam's Razor and go for the interpretation that assumes the least.

 

[Kylie]

Nope. Identical twins work perfectly.

Do I really need to point out what should be obvious as an internal contradiction in your post? The identical twins in the sinking boat are not the same person genetically. After admitting that fact, the rather weak attempt to handwave it away is not convincing.

So, here is the final exchange, "Hey, sis. Did you know that only 1 to 5 percent of identical twins are MZ? And you didn't make the cut -- I saved our separate placentas. So it's time for you to get wet!"

The salient point is that your "selfish gene" notion of morality does not require any charitable acts, and most certainly, not any heroic charitable acts.

I think you may be misunderstanding what "selfish gene" means.

The genes work to ensure the survival of their own genes. I would give my life for my daughter, but that is because my genes also exist within her. Genes promote behaviours and traits that serve to ensure the spread of themselves, including copies of themselves.

 

[Dan1988]

I'm not the one who presented their beliefs as though they were the basis of the discussion.

And I base my beliefs on the evidence. If you can present to me evidence that what I have based my beliefs on is incorrect, I will change my beliefs. Can you say the same thing?

I'm not searching for the truth as it has already been revealed to me. I can't present the type of evidence you require, as the truth is not mine to give away.

 

[Larniavc]

Once again it's YOUR subjective ethical framework. What gives you the right to subject on others your own subjective ethical framework. What authority do you carry to make those decisions?

For myself? I have total authority. To make other people behave the way I do? None. But luckily my ethical framework is basically the same as my country’s ethical framework so I don’t need to worry about subjecting others to my particular ethical framework.

I have no need to subject other people to my ethical framework because (surprise surprise) it fits really well with my cultures ethical framework.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not searching for the truth as it has already been revealed to me. I can't present the type of evidence you require, as the truth is not mine to give away.

That's not exactly how truth works.

 

[o_mlly]

You really aren't following the discussion.

I didn't say that evolution cannot explain virtues. I specifically have said that evolution doesn't speak directly to morality or virtue. That we are not determined by our genetic make up. We decide what is morally correct. But there is an aspect to what we inherit that can help to explain individual behaviour. Virtuous behaviour. And there is a significant societal expectation that we are all under as well. We have a need to be accepted within society. So that, in part, also explains our behaviour. And that is because we are a social species.

Oh, I am following the discussion quite well. But I do appreciate the difficulty you are having in expressing an untenable position.

So, now you claim: "But there is an aspect to what we inherit that can help to explain individual behaviour. Virtuous behaviour." But despite multiple requests, you still have not told us exactly from where those inherited "virtuous genes" come.

You do know that apparently not everyone has those "virtuous genes", don't you? How do you explain that?

 

[o_mlly]

Do I have to explain that we cannot discuss a moral problem if we don't know it exists? If we don't know that someone has committed what we might decide is an immoral act then how can it be discussed?

You are the omniscient onlooker who sees and knows all. That's why we call it a hypothetical. Or, do you have no explanation as to "no harm, no foul" problem of your proposed moral system.

 

[o_mlly]

This is a constant problem that people have with these discussions. If I, for example, say that we individually have the right to make these decisions doesn't mean that therefore I agree that all decisions are therefore correct. That is completely fallacious. Obviously. Or at least it's obvious to me.

Then kindly tell us why you think Kaczynski, Dahmer, and Manson don't have the moral authority to do what they did. Your colleague claims that they do. Could it be that there really is a transcendent moral authority?

 

[o_mlly]

Genes promote behaviours and traits that serve to ensure the spread of themselves ...

One and done? No, that's not how selfish genes work. The genes know that the probability of spreading themselves subsequent to suicide is 0%.

If a "sacrificial-suicide gene" evolved in humans then we would unequivocally see it in our nearest animal ancestors. But we don't.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You know I've been thinking about this lately. I don't see opinions changed much. We all come here with our own world views and if we were to accept someone else's views we would have to change our worldview. People are so vested in it. Particularly on forums like this.

And I suppose the longer one holds a view the harder it is to change. And I notice here that people tend to double down no matter what. Can't be made to appear wrong or weak or ..gracious or humble.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh, I am following the discussion quite well. But I do appreciate the difficulty you are having in expressing an untenable position.

So, now you claim: "But there is an aspect to what we inherit that can help to explain individual behaviour. Virtuous behaviour." But despite multiple requests, you still have not told us exactly from where those inherited "virtuous genes" come.

You do know that apparently not everyone has those "virtuous genes", don't you? How do you explain that?

Some people are slow to anger. Some spark up quite quickly. Some are miserly. Some generous. A lot of this is inherited. That is, genetic.

 

[Bradskii]

You are the omniscient onlooker who sees and knows all. That's why we call it a hypothetical. Or, do you have no explanation as to "no harm, no foul" problem of your proposed moral system.

It's completely nonsensical giving someone the details of a hypothetical and then asking them to respond as if they don't know what those details are.

If we don't know there's harm then there's nothing on which to comment. If we do, we can comment appropriately.

 

[Bradskii]

Then kindly tell us why you think Kaczynski, Dahmer, and Manson don't have the moral authority to do what they did. Your colleague claims that they do. Could it be that there really is a transcendent moral authority?

No. Everyone has the right to claim that what they do is morally correct. We all do. You and I do. Whether it is correct is another matter. We both think that Manson was wrong to do what he did. We both can give good reasons.

If your reasons are from God, then you can present them and we'll all discuss them to see if they are reasonable. That will be the deciding fact. Not where the reasons come from or who gave them. But whether we can agree that they are reasonable.

We have to decide. There's no-one else here to do it for us.

 

[Bradskii]

One and done? No, that's not how selfish genes work. The genes know that the probability of spreading themselves subsequent to suicide is 0%.

If a "sacrificial-suicide gene" evolved in humans then we would unequivocally see it in our nearest animal ancestors. But we don't.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but what we do is not necessarily determined by our genes. There are other factors. The obvious one in this case is that if you are in terrible pain, physically or mentally, you want it to end. And that might well override everything else. You probably won't be thinking 'Hey, I'll end it all after I have one or two kid's.'