The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

@gradyll I'd appreciate it if you answered my questions.

I think there's virtually universal agreement that things like empathy, art etc requires a high functioning brain. If you think it's something else that allows humans to think in abstracts, make plans, philosophize etc, I would like to know what that something is.

ok before we go further with answering your questions you need to provide evidence of this claim. You said numerous times that empathy requires a high or higher functioning brain. So according to this view people who are disabled, have down syndrome for example (with lower functioning brains), would not be able to love as much or have empathy as much as those with higher functioning brains. So if you can provide evidence that healthy individuals who are not disabled love more or have more empathy than say someone with down syndrome, then you may have a point. Up until now what you have said has no evidence at all. So I am waiting for you to prove some of your basic assumptions before moving forward.

 

[holo]

So according to this view people who are disabled, have down syndrome for example (with lower functioning brains), would not be able to love as much or have empathy as much as those with higher functioning brains. So if you can provide evidence that healthy individuals who are not disabled love more or have more empathy than say someone with down syndrome, then you may have a point.

You keep asking me to defend things I've never said, and which I've repeatedly clarified.

Here's what I did say:

I'm not saying that smarter people always have more love (though I don't know of studies that have investigated this). But intelligence is obviously an important factor. If you don't have the intelligence to think of such concepts as "all humans are family" you're obviously not capable of loving everybody the same.

I haven't said higher IQ makes someone more moral, but that things like consciousness, empathy, love, science etc etc needs a high functioning brain.

Again, I've never said that a high IQ equals more empathy, but that you need a highly developed brain to have empathy, imagination, ability to plan, to learn to write and so forth. Do you think that's not true?

But I should probably point out again that this doesn't mean that a higher IQ means you are necessarily more empathetic - there are lots of smart psychopaths out there. But it should be obvious that if you're no smarter than a tape worm, you won't have the ability to be empathetic.

Why can we never expect a tape worm to give its life for another tape worm, let alone a cat? Because it simply doesn't have the brains to do something like that. If you're not smart enough to think thoughts like "all beings have inherent worth" then you obviously won't be capable of things like self-sacrifice.

I've met plenty of disabled people with lots of love. However, those with a very low IQ are unable to grasp philosophical concepts such as human rights.

I don't know how to make myself much clearer. It's a simple statement:
1. Things like empathy require a sophisticated brain.
2. That doesn't mean there is a linear relationship between IQ and caring.
Agree or disagree?

If you still don't understand what I mean I honestly don't know how to word it. I would still like to see you reply to my questions though. What is it that allows humans but not ducks to show sacrificial love, if not the brain? And is love the only thing that has nothing to do with mental capacity, or does it also apply to things like philosophy, art, imagination, language etc?

 

[createdtoworship]

@gradyll I'd appreciate it if you answered my questions.

I think there's virtually universal agreement that things like empathy, art etc requires a high functioning brain. If you think it's something else that allows humans to think in abstracts, make plans, philosophize etc, I would like to know what that something is.

sir there is no need to quote a long list of you saying that you never talked about IQ, but here you are talking about higher functioning brains. And again I ask you do you have evidence that those who are disabled and have lower functioning brains are limited in their ability to love? Simply put, until you prove this basic assumption you made we are done here. IF you doubt you said the above, I will underline it for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

You keep asking me to defend things I've never said, and which I've repeatedly clarified.

Here's what I did say:
I don't know how to make myself much clearer. It's a simple statement:
1. Things like empathy require a sophisticated brain.
2. That doesn't mean there is a linear relationship between IQ and caring.
Agree or disagree?

If you still don't understand what I mean I honestly don't know how to word it. I would still like to see you reply to my questions though. What is it that allows humans but not ducks to show sacrificial love, if not the brain? And is love the only thing that has nothing to do with mental capacity, or does it also apply to things like philosophy, art, imagination, language etc?

I addressed this in my last post, please provide evidence before we can proceed to your next point.

 

[holo]

sir there is no need to quote a long list of you saying that you never talked about IQ

I've never said I didn't talk about IQ. I've said that even though you need a sophisticated brain to have empathy, there is not a linear relationship between IQ and caring.

And again I ask you do you have evidence that those who are disabled and have lower functioning brains are limited in their ability to love?

I think it's self evident that a duck is unable to love like a human, and I believe that has to do with mental capacity. Do you think it has to do with something else?

If you don't have the intelligence to even recognize that the person in front of you is a person, do you think it's still possible to love that person?

 

[holo]

I addressed this in my last post, please provide evidence before we can proceed to your next point.

You know what, since it appears to be impossible for me to explain to you what I actually mean, let's just say that yes, I believe that IQ equals love. As in, a guy with an IQ of 101 is more loving than a guy with an IQ of 100. OK? Let's say that's my argument.

Now your argument is that caring about people is completely independent of mental capacity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence, the ability to imagine, to put yourself in the shoes of others, nothing at all that depends on brain power. So, if it has nothing at all to do with the brain, my question to you is, what does it have to do with?

 

[createdtoworship]

I've never said I didn't talk about IQ. I've said that even though you need a sophisticated brain to have empathy, there is not a linear relationship between IQ and caring.

I think it's self evident that a duck is unable to love like a human, and I believe that has to do with mental capacity. Do you think it has to do with something else?

If you don't have the intelligence to even recognize that the person in front of you is a person, do you think it's still possible to love that person?

yes it does not have to do with mental capacity because elephants have a similar brain size and they don't have more empathy that a human does. Same with dolphins, they have comparable brains but you don't see them showing more love than humans. You can even go into humans that have larger brains because they are larger in general, taller for example humans do not love more than shorter people who have a smaller brain. Evidentially speaking of course. But if you have evidence please provide it.

 

[holo]

yes it does not have to do with mental capacity because elephants have a similar brain size and they don't have more empathy that a human does. Same with dolphins, they have comparable brains but you don't see them showing more love than humans. You can even go into humans that have larger brains because they are larger in general, taller for example humans do not love more than shorter people who have a smaller brain. Evidentially speaking of course. But if you have evidence please provide it.

edit:

I've never claimed that brains of equal volume have the same capacities and abilities or that larger brains are more capable of caring.

 

[createdtoworship]

edit:

I've never claimed that brains of equal volume have the same capacities and abilities or that larger brains are more capable of caring.

so then you do not agree with the following statement you made and wish to detract it?

@gradyll I'd appreciate it if you answered my questions.

I think there's virtually universal agreement that things like empathy, art etc requires a high functioning brain. If you think it's something else that allows humans to think in abstracts, make plans, philosophize etc, I would like to know what that something is.

basically you are saying a higher functioning brain is required for empathy...

did you not say this?

 

[holo]

so then you do not agree with the following statement you made and wish to detract it?

Why should I wish to detract it? There's no contradiction. You need a high functioning brain to have empathy. Two brains of similar size don't necessarily have the same abilities and qualities.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why should I wish to detract it? There's no contradiction. You need a high functioning brain to have empathy. Two brains of similar size don't necessarily have the same abilities and qualities.

now you made two positive statements here. Do you care to provide evidence for them, or should they be tossed out (as in debate, opinions don't do much).

 

[holo]

now you made two positive statements here. Do you care to provide evidence for them, or should they be tossed out (as in debate, opinions don't do much).

Do you need evidence that two similarly sized brains aren't necessarily alike?

Do you need evidence that mental capacities depend on the brain?

Why aren't you answering my questions?

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you need evidence that two similarly sized brains aren't necessarily alike?

Do you need evidence that mental capacities depend on the brain?

Why aren't you answering my questions?

before we move on simply provide evidence for this particular claim:

You need a high functioning brain to have empathy.

 

[holo]

before we move on simply provide evidence for this particular claim:

If a car goes really fast, does that have anything to do with the engine?

 

[createdtoworship]

If a car goes really fast, does that have anything to do with the engine?

so your having problems proving your assertion. Ok then, just admit you don't have any evidence that having a higher functioning brain means that someone will love more or have more empathy. I personally don't think empathy or love has to do with intelligence at all evidentially speaking. And all you have for evidence is an engine illustration, so I guess we are done here.

 

[holo]

so I guess we are done here.

Yeah, me too.

 

[cvanwey]

now you made two positive statements here. Do you care to provide evidence for them, or should they be tossed out (as in debate, opinions don't do much).

Your responses continue to entertain the audience. You, yourself, made a very large positive claim. A claim in which you feel proves your 'moral argument'. You stated that only humans have the capacity for 'sacrificial love'. It was later pointed out that animals protect their human care takers. You then modified your assertion, by stating that animals only help their own offspring / family unit, or, human care takers. Many links were then provided, demonstrating how dolphins will place themselves into harms way, to save both humans and their own species. You ignored them, on several occasions.

Your argument was debunked ~100 posts ago. Do you have anything else?

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah, me too.

thanks for the debate sir, I didn't mean to cut it short. But we really need to analyze the things we believe on faith versus the things we believe on fact. If you can't quote facts regarding your statements you have faith similiar to any religious dogma. I believe God created the universe as a matter of fact, but I know I cannot prove Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I take that on faith. So I have a very clear cute view of what is faith and what is fact in my life. It helps.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your responses continue to entertain the audience. You, yourself, made a very large positive claim. A claim in which you feel proves your 'moral argument'. You stated that only humans have the capacity for 'sacrificial love'. It was later pointed out that animals protect their human care takers. You then modified your assertion, by stating that animals only help their own offspring / family unit, or, human care takers. Many links were then provided, demonstrating how dolphins will place themselves into harms way, to save both humans and their own species. You ignored them, on several occasions.

Your argument was debunked ~100 posts ago. Do you have anything else?

Sorry sir, You prove my case the more you post, that blocking you was the right action, thanks. Maybe if you were nicer, you would have more people to debate with.

 

[cvanwey]

Sorry sir, You prove my case the more you post, that blocking you was the right action, thanks. Maybe if you were nicer, you would have more people to debate with.

Sorry sir, as stated prior, you continue to entertain.

One of your primary 'points' in this thread topic, is to state that only humans have the capacity for sacrifice outside the 'family unit'. Well, unless God has added dolphins to this list, you have been proven incorrect.

Furthermore, it's a good thing you 'blocked' me, (how ever that works)? Since you are still responding....

It would appear the only thing you are truly blocking, is responding to the many valid points of your opponents.