The Moral Argument (revamped)

[gaara4158]

so then was your original statement false? I am saying this because you seem to be saying something different now.

My statement about absolute brain size and cognitive abilities? That was just in response to your question asking why animals with the biggest brains don’t seem to be as morally developed as we are. I answered that question, but what I said about brain sizes is still true.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't honor wikipedia as a truly scientific source of information. When reading the list of the top ten, it said "citation needed" several times. This just goes to show that wikipedia is written by public, not by people with degrees in the field of the article, I could post several articles on wikipedia errors if you wish.

lol... yet you think nothing of believing a 2k year old book where donkeys talk, men walk on water and rise from the dead.*

*citation needed indeed

 

[gaara4158]

not talking about hive insects. I was talking about animals not insects.

Insects. Are. Animals. *facepalm*

 

[createdtoworship]

Scroll down to animal altruism in mammals.
Altruism (biology) - Wikipedia

Some of it is food sharing.
Its easy to find other examples too.

wikipedia is publically edited by users who don't have degrees in the field that they are speaking on. So no, I don't use wikipedia. Do you have another source, or was that your only source? Also I can post numerous sites showing the errors of wikipedia if you prefer.

 

[createdtoworship]

Insects. Are. Animals. *facepalm*

they are in the animal kingdom yes, but they would not be considered animals. Did wikipedia tell you that?

 

[createdtoworship]

My statement about absolute brain size and cognitive abilities? That was just in response to your question asking why animals with the biggest brains don’t seem to be as morally developed as we are. I answered that question, but what I said about brain sizes is still true.

so was that statement you made true or false? Because after I questioned you on it, you rephrased it.

 

[createdtoworship]

so for some of you quoting wikipedia: wikipedia has been known to be wrong:

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

secondly, Wikipedia is edited and created by the public, no degree necessary.

thirdly, when Wikipedia is in error, the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily. Believe me, I've tried. Numerous times, to the point of being reprimanded. It is an odd sort of encyclopedia, if one can so call it that. Every other encyclopedia is written by professionals in the field of expertise. This happens to be written by anyone who has a computer, and who edits the page first. If you don't like that source I quoted about the errors of wikipedia, I have a lot more.

 

[createdtoworship]

My statement about absolute brain size and cognitive abilities? That was just in response to your question asking why animals with the biggest brains don’t seem to be as morally developed as we are. I answered that question, but what I said about brain sizes is still true.

I apologize, I should not narrow in on your statements that appear to be flawed. That's immature, and selfish.

 

[createdtoworship]

Posting nonsense doesn’t help your original premise. Which is also nonsense...

I dont think dolphins have figured out a way to store food. Thats a big enabler of out sharing culture. Lots of animals share the kill when its fresh.

That is what it comes down to isn't it? To murder or to murder?

Churchill had the right idea, as far as leadership thought. If you give society the idea that wiping out any unscrupulous leader was ok, there soon wouldn't be any leaders left.

Scroll down to animal altruism in mammals.
Altruism (biology) - Wikipedia

Some of it is food sharing.
Its easy to find other examples too.

What I was trying to say however is that animals in general do not show the same type of remorse over evil, or push to do good. I don't see animals crying over their sin. I see humans who are honest, crying over their sin. humility is basically two things, honesty and and good memory. We remember we mess up and we correct it. Or we get worse, and we over medicate ourselves as a culture, and psychoanalyze it. Animals don't have the desire for good or bad. They just do whatever comes to mind from their God given instinct. humans can be very sweet and genuine however. And while I see my dogs come up for a pet, it's not to cuddle it's to get a scratch. While humans can show love and emotion in a much more meaningful way. All this ties into the basic mindset given by our creator, to do the right thing. Excuses are basically something we tell ourselves when we don't want to do what is right. See we know what is right. We all do. But we make excuses not to do it. It is that thing we know deep down, that I am testifying of. It's a natural law, a moral absolute, a universal set of moral facts. That is why you can't find a culture anywhere that honors selfish behaviour, and that does not honor self sacrifice. However you see animals being self sacrificial for example in those situations you gave, wolves bringing food back to other members of their pack for example. And you don't see the other dogs saying thank you or even acknowledging it, because it's not them doing it, it's their instinct. But I must also say, that the dog that brings food back is not actually sacrificing. He most likely has eaten to the full , prior to taking food back. And if there was none left, then he would not take any back at all. That to me is not love. It's just pack instinct. you know what I mean?

 

[gaara4158]

they are in the animal kingdom yes, but they would not be considered animals. Did wikipedia tell you that?

Not considered animals? Are you thinking of mammals? Or are you just trolling? You can’t say “animals don’t do this” and then when shown examples of animals doing that say “those don’t count.” If you want examples of mammals sharing food, click on the link I posted earlier. Or this one, if you like. You’re making a lot of statements that are so easily demonstrated to be false, which leads me to suspect that you either have no idea what you’re talking about or you’re not posting in good faith. So which is it?

so was that statement you made true or false? Because after I questioned you on it, you rephrased it.

As I just said, it’s true. I rephrase things when you don’t seem to understand the first time.

 

[gaara4158]

so for some of you quoting wikipedia: wikipedia has been known to be wrong:

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

secondly, Wikipedia is edited and created by the public, no degree necessary.

thirdly, when Wikipedia is in error, the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily. Believe me, I've tried. Numerous times, to the point of being reprimanded. It is an odd sort of encyclopedia, if one can so call it that. Every other encyclopedia is written by professionals in the field of expertise. This happens to be written by anyone who has a computer, and who edits the page first. If you don't like that source I quoted about the errors of wikipedia, I have a lot more.

This doesn’t give you license to dismiss Wikipedia-sourced arguments outright. You still have to go into the article, check the sources and research the claims you’re not sure about. Dismissing someone’s argument because it’s sourced by Wikipedia is committing the genetic fallacy.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not considered animals? Are you thinking of mammals? Or are you just trolling? You can’t say “animals don’t do this” and then when shown examples of animals doing that say “those don’t count.” If you want examples of mammals sharing food, click on the link I posted earlier. Or this one, if you like. You’re making a lot of statements that are so easily demonstrated to be false, which leads me to suspect that you either have no idea what you’re talking about or you’re not posting in good faith. So which is it?

As I just said, it’s true. I rephrase things when you don’t seem to understand the first time.

but when animals share, they don't have to be taught, "please share with others." As humans are taught while growing up. They know it by instinct. And like I said it's not technically a sacraficial love, because most likely the animal will take his fill of food prior to sharing, and if there is not enough for them and him, they will go without. So that is what I mean, humans have a deeper type of love.

 

[createdtoworship]

This doesn’t give you license to dismiss Wikipedia-sourced arguments outright. You still have to go into the article, check the sources and research the claims you’re not sure about. Dismissing someone’s argument because it’s sourced by Wikipedia is committing the genetic fallacy.

yes it certainly does. But even if it was true that animals shared, it's not a sacrificial type of sharing that humans possess.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't honor wikipedia as a truly scientific source of information. When reading the list of the top ten, it said "citation needed" several times. This just goes to show that wikipedia is written by public, not by people with degrees in the field of the article, I could post several articles on wikipedia errors if you wish.

So you think all those examples are false?
OK
So, whats your source from where you gain such certainty on this topic?

 

[gaara4158]

but when animals share, they don't have to be taught, "please share with others." As humans are taught while growing up. They know it by instinct. And like I said it's not technically a sacraficial love, because most likely the animal will take his fill of food prior to sharing, and if there is not enough for them and him, they will go without. So that is what I mean, humans have a deeper type of love.

How do you know what animals do and don’t teach each other? And who cares? As far as I’m concerned your question about the origin of morality in humans has been fully answered. You’re now just making wild claims about animals that you don’t fully understand yourself. You can ask about animals in another thread.

yes it certainly does. But even if it was true that animals shared, it's not a sacrificial type of sharing that humans possess.

Look up the genetic fallacy. That’s exactly the fallacy you’re committing by engaging the source rather than the claims. And it means nothing if humans happen to be more altruistic than other species. I’ve already explained why that would be the case, even though you’ve never demonstrated that it is.

You are free to reject what I’m saying and continue being wrong, but at least look up the claims you’re making before you post them here.

 

[Uber Genius]

Good post, you sure do your homework. Also, you can always ignore posters that are being rude, I recommend that rather than encouraging the behavior. The ignore function is on the profile of the person using ridicule or slander (abusive ad hominems). Take care, God Speed.

Why not point out their errors in logic and give them a taste of their own medicine. I do have many on "Ignore." But those are the flyby internet infidels and Christian flybys that ignore engaging. Others seem to be unaware of how their rhetorical flourish doesn't count for knowledge.

But your approach above would be in the main for most of my fellow Christians. The whole suffering fools lightly thing has been a historic problem since undergrad back in the 1970s. And it continues unabated today as do my other much-treasured vices, single malt scotch, and full-bodied cigars.

 

[Uber Genius]

Those are instances in the category "moral absolutes", according to you.

What I'm looking for is what moral absolute means. What defines this category?

Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

by typing "def. of moral absolutes" into a google search it provided this definitional discussion of the various terms. It was the first in the list. Took total of 30 seconds find that answer.

But remember that the reason why the moral argument works, if it does, is that it suggests a premise that "Objective moral values and duties exist."

There are only two sources for such "Objective values" platonism, or God.

So atheistic arguments range from denying the premise - affirming moral relativism, and positing that moral values are a function of platonism, justice, mercy, fairness, kindness, don't murder, etc. are all self-existent in some eternal form.

Theist of course argue that the source of God's commands and revelation to our conscious directly of his commands, are a function of God's all-good nature.

 

[durangodawood]

....That to me is not love. It's just pack instinct. you know what I mean?

I think youre overstating your capacity for animal mind-reading here.

I mean, you know how you feel. You can communicate with other people about how they feel. But the language barrier between us and animals has left you assuming there's nothing going on in terms of genuine care for others.

I'm curious where you get your certainly about the subjective experience of other animals. I observe dogs and cats too.

 

[durangodawood]

Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

by typing "def. of moral absolutes" into a google search it provided this definitional discussion of the various terms. It was the first in the list. Took total of 30 seconds find that answer.

Wow that definition is all over the place.

Who knew my whole naturalistic argument here was a moral absolutist position too!

 

[Uber Genius]

I agree, but I am talking about society in general, not a small case.

The context for my statement was that "Proper Functionality" is usually added to the requirements list when defending moral intuition or the self-evident nature of objective values and duties.

Now the above knowledge gained as self-evidently true is nevertheless requiring proper function of one's faculties.

So I'm also arguing the global, not a special case.

I was just poisoning the wells to the objection that, "Not everyone perceives the same morals, therefore they are not self-evident," from the moral relativists.