Are Morals Relevant?

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There were societies where slavery was the norm, and if the infant were a slave, to perform an act that we currently refer to as rape would not be evil because it was your property; and what constitutes as rape today was not necessarily considered rape years ago.

I'm not suggesting norms within a society are absolute, I am giving a very specific example. I would like for you to provide a specific society (where that practice would be acceptable) though to give more credibility to your claim. But even if you could, that's just equating morality with whatever laws of men within a society are put in place. Which does not even deal with whether such and such law is right or wrong. So if the law were changed making it legal, would that make it any less evil? Absolutely not, it is sick and perverted, deserving of swift capital punishment. Good grief, such dissent is not wonder people say (wrongfully) atheists have no morals...obviously they do, borrowed capital and all.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not suggesting norms within a society are absolute, I am giving a very specific example. I would like for you to provide a specific society (where that practice would be acceptable)

When it comes to morality, there is never going to be 100% agreement in any society; there will always be those who disagree on moral issues.

though to give more credibility to your claim. But even if you could, that's just equating morality with whatever laws of men within a society are put in place. Which does not even deal with whether such and such law is right or wrong. So if the law were changed making it legal, would that make it any less evil?

In the eyes of those in that society? Yes. Example; 2018 a 30 year old man having sex with a 10 year old girl is seen a an evil. 1818 a 30 year old man having sex with a 10 year old girl would be just about normal.

Absolutely not, it is sick and perverted, deserving of swift capital punishment. Good grief, such dissent is not wonder people say (wrongfully) atheists have no morals...obviously they do, borrowed capital and all.

It is estimated that Mary the mother of Jesus was approx 12 years old when she gave birth to Jesus. 2000 years ago in what is not called Israel it was normal for girls to get married at such a young age (of course people didn’t live as long back then) but today a girl having sex at that age by an older man is considered wrong. How do you supposed this happened?

 

[redleghunter]

What I said had nothing to do with "reaping what you sow" perhaps you should read what I wrote again.... all of it.

Ok we can revisit....

Perhaps it depends on how one defines morality. I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions, and how they affect me and my neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is helpful to me and my neighbor is “good” and what is harmful to me and my neighbor is “bad”.

Perhaps the reap what you sow was not the best fit.

Maybe, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."

That too seems very familiar.

 

[redleghunter]

It is estimated that Mary the mother of Jesus was approx 12 years old when she gave birth to Jesus

Who estimated that?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok we can revisit....

Perhaps the reap what you sow was not the best fit.

Maybe, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."

That too seems very familiar.

No you missed it again. It is about how we understand the difference between right and wrong; good and bad.

 

[redleghunter]

No you missed it again. It is about how we understand the difference between right and wrong; good and bad.

Based on what exactly?

 

[Ken-1122]

Who estimated that?

Most historians estimate it based on what was normal in that area during that time period

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

When it comes to morality, there is never going to be 100% agreement in any society; there will always be those who disagree on moral issues.

Red herring you know. What does consensus agreement or disagreement in a society on moral issues have to do with whether raping an infant is absolutely evil? Nothing, it (legality) has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the unethical behavior.

In the eyes of those in that society? Yes. Example; 2018 a 30 year old man having sex with a 10 year old girl is seen a an evil. 1818 a 30 year old man having sex with a 10 year old girl would be just about normal.

Bad example with no evidence to support your claim. To say "in the eyes of those in that society", "in the eyes of" is mere avoidance, side stepping the force of the argument. Having sex with children has never been "normal", it is sick and disgusting, obvious deprave behavior.

It is estimated that Mary the mother of Jesus was approx 12 years old when she gave birth to Jesus. 2000 years ago in what is not called Israel it was normal for girls to get married at such a young age (of course people didn’t live as long back then) but today a girl having sex at that age by an older man is considered wrong. How do you supposed this happened?

And where did you get that information from? And of course she was not impregnated through sexual intercourse, nor though a man.

 

[redleghunter]

Most historians estimate it based on what was normal in that area during that time period

You mean the Jewish custom. Well it was probably universal males and females became adults at 13. There was no such thing as adolescence back then.

 

[Allandavid]

When hundreds see any of the above alive after dying a horrible death and put in the grave, ping me.

When you get actual evidence of hundreds seeing anyone alive after dying....you ping me....!

 

[redleghunter]

When you get actual evidence of hundreds seeing anyone alive after dying....you ping me....!

Ping. The New Testament.

 

[Allandavid]

So a process endowed you with empathy and feelings. The personification of a process sounds like religion to me.

Oh good grief...is this the best you can do...?

I guess the simple physics involved with gravity which has provided me with an atmosphere to breathe is a ‘personification of a process’ as welll...? Gravity is a ‘religion’...right...?

And can you show me the evolutionary evidence of empathy and feelings and put it in a petri dish so we can all behold it under a microscope?

And do you have any peer reviewed studies of the ehvolution of feelings and empathy?

Certainly can...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1978.tb05091.x/full

Cognitive Empathy and Emotional Empathy in Human Behavior and Evolution

The empathic brain: how, when and why? - ScienceDirect

http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2001-18164-004.html

The Evolution of Empathy

http://people.ku.edu/~a382s825/The Evolution of Empathy RD.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/zygo.12317

How many more references do you require...? There are libraries of information on the topic...

Pol Pot, Lenin and Stalin believed in forming social (no pun intended) groups. That did not turn out so well.

Their short-lived failures make my point. These were generally not communities formed for mutual benefit of their members...

Yes and we see what happens when everyone's survival instinct kicks in when resources are scarce. They tend to forget about this nebulous social compact and start eating each other.

Indeed. Again you make my point. Remember, I posit that human evolution has resulted in the formation of societies in which emphasis is placed upon the health of the community AND that of its members. When the health of either suffers, so does the other...

Oh, and let’s not forget where most of those breakdowns have occurred...in communities that also have strong religious identity...

 

[Allandavid]

Ping. The New Testament.

Unfounded claims are not evidence...you cannot point me to even ONE documented testimony of those supposed 500. All you can do is to point me to someone who heard that such a group existed and that they had made those claims.

Fine...I know of a group of people who claim they’ve seen firsthand the presence of aliens at Area 51......so what?

 

[Allandavid]

I'm not suggesting norms within a society are absolute, I am giving a very specific example. I would like for you to provide a specific society (where that practice would be acceptable) though to give more credibility to your claim. But even if you could, that's just equating morality with whatever laws of men within a society are put in place. Which does not even deal with whether such and such law is right or wrong. So if the law were changed making it legal, would that make it any less evil? Absolutely not, it is sick and perverted, deserving of swift capital punishment. Good grief, such dissent is not wonder people say (wrongfully) atheists have no morals...obviously they do, borrowed capital and all.

Good, some progress...

Indeed, not all moral codes are absolute. Some do stand the test of time...and these tend to be those ‘rules’ which most closely reflect the core wellbeing of a society and its members.

So yes, raping and murdering infants will probably always be considered abhorrent (except in religious texts that recommend dashing the heads of babies against rocks...), because that attacks one of the basic tenets of both social and species evolution...the need to produce and care for the next generation.

 

[redleghunter]

How many more references do you require...? There are libraries of information on the topic.

None of them explain how it happened. That is just is present.

This is quite enlightening as it enters the metaphysical realm:

This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors’ survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest.​

So they don't know....

Oh good grief...is this the best you can do...?

I guess the simple physics involved with gravity which has provided me with an atmosphere to breathe is a ‘personification of a process’ as welll...? Gravity is a ‘religion’...right...?

Gravity is observable. Poor example.

Yet your response still looks to the process as akin to the ancients looking to the elements as personified.

Their short-lived failures make my point. These were generally not communities formed for mutual benefit of their members...

Every generation has a Pol Pot and Stalin. Showing the very model you champion is subjective.

Indeed. Again you make my point. Remember, I posit that human evolution has resulted in the formation of societies in which emphasis is placed upon the health of the community AND that of its members. When the health of either suffers, so does the other...

Each of these societies fell at some point from greed and self interests. They did not evolve to become better. There is nothing new under the sun. I will say societies with autocratic or totalitarian leanings seem to last longer in your model. As long as these societies can be controlled economically or by brute force.

Oh, and let’s not forget where most of those breakdowns have occurred...in communities that also have strong religious identity...

Marxism and fascism did not. Government became the religion.

 

[redleghunter]

So yes, raping and murdering infants will probably always be considered abhorrent (except in religious texts that recommend dashing the heads of babies against rocks...), because that attacks one of the basic tenets of both social and species evolution.

I gather you are opposed to abortion on demand?

 

[Allandavid]

I gather you are opposed to abortion on demand?

No, not at all...I have a personal aversion to it, because all of the pregnancies that I have been involved with were desired and planned. However, I don’t consider it part of my social responsibility to dictate my personal inclinations to others in my society. They have the same right as I do to form an opinion about the ‘rightness’ of choosing abortion in their circumstances.

In fact (anticipating your response), supporting the right of women to decide when they will or will not give birth actually strengthens that basic tenet I mentioned earlier...

 

[redleghunter]

Unfounded claims are not evidence...you cannot point me to even ONE documented testimony of those supposed 500. All you can do is to point me to someone who heard that such a group existed and that they had made those claims.

Fine...I know of a group of people who claim they’ve seen firsthand the presence of aliens at Area 51......so what?

The one making the claim knew the ones who saw Jesus after His resurrection. He was Paul of Tarsus who also saw the risen Christ years later.

I understand impeaching star witnesses is a skeptic tactic used often. It avoids the need to actually examine the eyewitness testimony.

 

[dmmesdale]

No, not at all...I have a personal aversion to it, because all of the pregnancies that I have been involved with were desired and planned. However, I don’t consider it part of my social responsibility to dictate my personal inclinations to others in my society.

Does not bother you about slavery in the Bible.

They have the same right as I do to form an opinion about the ‘rightness’ of choosing abortion in their circumstances.

As do slavers without all your moral judgements boring outrages etc.
To dictate your inclinations outrages as if they were words from on high when in reality they are mere opinion given your start point.

In fact (anticipating your response), supporting the right of women to decide when they will or will not give birth actually strengthens that basic tenet I mentioned earlier...

The woman owns the fetus and the slaver owns the slave. While you merrily talk out of both sides of your mouth. Contrived and selective outrage and double standards.

 

[redleghunter]

No, not at all...I have a personal aversion to it, because all of the pregnancies that I have been involved with were desired and planned. However, I don’t consider it part of my social responsibility to dictate my personal inclinations to others in my society. They have the same right as I do to form an opinion about the ‘rightness’ of choosing abortion in their circumstances.

Yet the above statement contradicts your previous statement:

one of the basic tenets of both social and species evolution...the need to produce and care for the next generation.

Abortion on demand killing millions each year goes against your basic tenets of social and species evolution.

Are you suggesting that the natural selection which got humanity to where it is now (again assigning sovereignty to a process) is now controllable by humanity?