When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

I don't see how you conclude that. We're social animals. We work together and form groups. We would still need to do this to survive as species. Moral norms are a sort of negotiation for group interaction.

Not necessarily as we see what we would call immoral acts in other species to survive. Humans have a higher moral sense that cannot be explained away by evolution.

They didn't show that at all.

Then you must not have read the articles I linked.

There are hard-wired moral universals. To an important extent, all people have the same morality; the differences that we see—however important they are to our everyday lives—are variations on a theme.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

'We think children are born with a skeleton of general expectations about fairness and these principles and concepts get shaped in different ways depending on the culture and the environment they’re brought up in.
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months

From the systematic review, the moral sense is found to be innate. However, moral development is fostered by social interactions and environmental factors. First, moral sense is found to be innate in humans; individuals can naturally respond morally to various dilemmas. As seen among children and young infants, moral sense naturally exists. Second, it can be socially nurtured through social interactions and exposure to various environmental factors.
Origin and Development of Moral Sense: A Systematic Review

This is akin to saying "We all think good is good and bad is bad. It's only when we get into detail about what we each mean by good and bad that we realize we disagree."
It's such a benign and meaningless statement, it would be shocking if it came out of any field other than anthropology. It is terrifying to imagine someone received money to do this research.

No it means we all agree on certain morals in how to treat humans like being kind and not cruel, being fair or just, equal Rights ect. But we vary in how to apply these morals. Its not that some culture say there is no such thing as equality, justice or fairness as they all agree these are real morals we need to uphold.

I didn't see any biological research.

I linked some in the previous posts.

“certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. . . . They are instead the products of biological evolution.” Natural selection works, at least in part, at a genetic level, there is a logic to being instinctively kind to our kin, whose survival and well-being promote the spread of our genes. More than that, it is often beneficial for humans to work together with other humans, which means that it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals. All this is reason to consider the innateness of at least basic moral concepts.

Little Angels (Published 2013)

The Yale psychologist Paul Bloom mines child-development research for insights into morality.

www.nytimes.com

Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience
Morality was selected by evolution in our human ancestors in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. Developmental psychologists have demonstrated that some building blocks of morality are in place very early in development [3].
Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience.

Interestingly, brain circuits that are involved in discerning another’s pain overlap brain circuits involved with moral reasoning, emotions, and decision making.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01863/full

Possibly the least useful field. It's a hobby for children who have rich parents.

That seems rather dismissive considering that Anthropology is often done in conjunction with biology/evolution and other sciences. Its an important aspect as its actually understanding human behaviour from what actually happened through texts, tools, architexture and other evdience of past societies. Comparing animal behaviour to humans ect. Look at how Jane Goodall helped understand primate behaviour compared to humans.

Sadly, not much better than anthropology. Sociology can explain what is happening but it runs into trouble. For example, if a mayor wants to know where all the shoplifting and petty theft is happening in his city, who is doing it, and how much it's costing...good sociologists can gather that data and explain what is happening. If the mayor asks why it's happening....and the sociologist wants to continue getting funding....they can either explain that it's a combination of not supporting police, removing bail requirements for those crimes, and raising the price tags on shoplifting....or he can not consider those factors and play around with statistics before making the "educated guess" that "systemic racism" or "poverty" are the problems.

One of those answers gets the sociologist more work....the other gets his research buried and another sociologist steps in to do the same job.

That happens in all areas of science and funding. The point is sociology like anthropology is another aspect and perspective of human behaviour that biology, psychology and neuroscience cannot do. We know that socialisation is an important aspect to understanding human behaviour.

Sociologists look at the bigger picture of how the science data all fits together socially and culturally. If its not sociology then some dicipline is required apart from hard sciences to understand the findings from hard sciences. Primarily that is what Sociology is best at doing and provides useful information through the raw data before its politicised for funding.

Well I don't think we're coming in with nothing. We're coming in with emotions and social groups to either conform to or we find ourselves struggling alone.

Yes thats the moral sense. We would not be looking for or mattering about conforming to social groups and society if we did not have this moral sence that it matters how we treat others. We would just be amoral ruthless beings seeking self interest to survive.

 

[stevevw]

Well thats part of the interesting thought experiment I've tried several times to get you to answer despite your repeated attempts to avoid it. The absence of a social group or even the possibility of being judged by a social group leaves us in a state absent of any moral views or judgments. I can't think of anything moral or immoral I can do in that scenario.....and if we had these moral truths or intuitions that you seem to believe in, they should still exist regardless of the absence of a social group or their judgments.

All our behavior would simply be described as either furthering a goal or not....and absent of any goals, it's just a behavior we engaged in for whatever reason we chose.

Now, as a theist....I wouldn't be surprised if you claimed that you still had some moral principles to follow....because you believe in a God that wants you to behave in certain ways and you cannot avoid his judgment. This is perhaps the reason why we invent gods....to explain why some of us still feel the need to behave in certain ways absent from any social group. I would suggest that it's merely a result of the indoctrination of your religion.

I thought I already replied to this. Don't think that my argument disagreeing with you is ignoring your thought experiment. As I mentioned we are conscious and moral beings able to understand ourselves not only in the conext of others but our place in something more transcendent and not necessarily due to a creator God/s.

It is from that for which we can contemplate our lives and behaviour in the greater scheme of things even if that is the universe itself causing us to think about our moral status in the overall scheme of things. We would still look to the stars in awe and woner if there was some mind behind things. This would lead us to question our behaviour for a higher purpose than just existing as amoral beings.

If you were to become an atheist...you'd find that last judge gone, that last constant constraint on your choices missing. No morals to describe or define but whatever ones you create for yourself.

I disagree and I think the science shows that even without God or belief in a moral lawgiver that we are constantly questioning ourselves, angusihing over our behaviour keeping us awake at night. Wondering what this all means in the greater scheme of things. By the way I once was an atheist and I still had a moral sense. It was just geared towards some other philosophical and metaphysical idea about morality and life including evolution or humanism ect.

And that's an interesting indicator of where morality comes from....who makes it and how it is impressed upon you. Your social group, to a certainty, is the biggest influence on your morals....though if you have a God, I'd imagine he's a close second, even if you'd imagine him first.

I think its a misrepresented indicator of where morality comes from. Like I said when we peel back the so called differences between cultures we find a common morality that is not because of any god or culture. Its evolutionary, its also based in the human natural ability for spirituality and transcendence which means its not something humans created but rather part of what it means to be human.

As the evdience seems to show we start off with this moral sense. But certainly culture can be impressed on us and mold that moral sense in a variety of ways even dispensing with it through indoctrination. So I think its the innate ability thats "the biggest influence on your morals" and its culture that just refines this.

There's no shortage of believers in prison after all....and their moral norms are wildly different from those outside of prison. In fact, all sorts of circumstances can wildly shift one's morals....but we need not get into that.

I think this is a logical fallacy that because morals can be shifting that morality must be culturally created. Why couldn't it be that morality is innate we all have common moral concerns but some of us can construct cultural ideas about how that should be applied according to the factual circumstances they find themselves in.

The idea that a prison or mod culture that may actually create morals that are abhorrent to most people is somehow evdience that there is no moral truths and therefore these abhorrent examples qualify as moral seems self defeating. It leaves us without any way to say that prison and mod culture so called morality is just as good as treating people with the kind of respect, kindness and justice we know we all deserve and want for ourselves as no better.

Why can't we just say, Prison and mob ideas or morality are just plan wrong because they don't meet the common sense morality we all know.

I'm also well aware of those who claim that without a God they see no reason to follow any morals....and I'm certainly not trying to convince them that God doesn't exist or that without him morals aren't real....because if that's what they need to figure out how to behave, then I definitely don't wish to take that from them.

Funny you should say that. There is research that shows belonging to a religion and having such beliefs makes people more moral on average. Reason being they belong to something that specialises in morality and makes it an issue everyday so that people are continually reminded about being moral. Simple logic. It also gives meaning in the greater scheme which adds to self worth which can garner respect for others.

The woke are certainly moralists if nothing else. They pretend to blame "systems" and "hierarchies" of groups that have different morals from themselves....but in reality, they blame everyone who disagrees with their floating, shifting, and baseless sense of morality. They believe that because they are the good people, and all who disagree are either the bad people or those "complicit with them"....they are justified in both forcing their morality onto others and punishing anyone who refuses to go along with them.

That sounds like traditional religion. Which supports the idea that you don't have to belong to a church to be religious about morality. I think belief and thus morality are natural human states. So when a society gets rid of God this leaves a moral void. For the traditional religious belief offers a meaning and substrate for morality.

But atheists find it hard to come up with such a substrate that can make any sense as its based on a metaphysical outlook that cannot always be rationalised or evdienced. That is why ideology like Woke are growing so fast because its a way of replacing traditional religions.

Look at Mr Peterson and his current dilemma. He became famous for standing up to them on the grounds that they had no right to compel speech from him. His detractors said he was being impolite and hurtful. He said that he couldn't agree with them on principle alone....and if they continued down their current path, people like him would be punished in the future. They laughed at him, said he was ridiculously overreacting....and now they are punishing him....for speaking his mind, on a subject he's an expert in. He was correct about not only his own rights....and his persecution....but their authoritarian nature, and what ends they would justify to silence him.

Yes and not just Peterson but a growing number as already mentioned in this thread earlier. But its interesting that these people were predicting the outcome and were right which speaks of them understanding what was happening in relation to the threat this had on traditional Western principles that built our culture. It seems that every now and then people come along and try to change these truth principles claiming they know better and fail miserably. Thats because its unreal and reality has a way of coming back to bite you.

There are woke people who probably genuinely believe they are helping victims of some sort. People who are victims of an unjust society. Their "victims" aren't actually victims though....

I think this is a good example of what you were talking about with prison morality. People take the same moral principles of say justice and then apply it to some ideological belief about what justice is. They justify it on other moral grounds slike being nobel, protecting people ect.

But this is not really about nobel principles like justice. There is always an underlying ideology driving things. Often in contradiction to the facts and reality. When we look at things objectively and in the reality of our liveed experience and the lessons we have learnt over millenia we see the unreality and lies.

The "victims" they pretend to champion are whatever group they believe will win them the most political power, which they use to spread their religion. It was black people for most of Trump's presidency....now it seems to be trans people. Black people weren't really victims though...there was less than 2 dozen questionable killings of black people by police on any given year. An extremely tiny number. They don't even have a number of "trans youth" commiting suicide....it's just a story of victimization. Much like the innocent black men unjustly shot dead by police...I'm sure if we look really hard, we can find examples of some trans youths killing themselves over their personal trans struggles on any given year.

It's not about victims though. It's about political power. BLM didn't help any black people....didn't spend a thin dime on black victims....and that's despite raising millions. Black people were shamefully tossed aside by the woke once they won the election. They weren't even thanked for their help....their communities were devastated by the woke, and anyone who dares to implement their political policies only hurts black communities more. These children aren't being helped by the woke either....just used for political power until they can safely be tossed aside for some other group. Just as they wouldn't admit to the devastating effects of BLM....trans affirmative care will leave a pile of bodies and broken families and communities in its wake as well.

The ignorant woke who genuinely believe they are doing good I can forgive once they abandon their new religion and fake morality. The ones that use this religion for profit, and personal gain, and seek to punish those who disagree are the worst people I've ever had the displeasure of sharing a society with. I don't think I'd even speak a word against any injustice that comes their way.

This morality of political gain called the "woke" religion is near to running its course. I don't know anyone who likes them and they try to pretend that they aren't the woke anymore hoping to rebrand themselves. They never help anyone....only themselves....and it's entirely driven by hate. Hatred for white men, Republicans, Christians, the straight and men and women who aren't confused about being men or women is the only point of this....and that hate gets old after awhile. They don't know what to do with the political power it gains them except for spreading the religion and trying to convince people to continue to hate. Consider that the FBI had to create a group of militia men, organize the group, arm them, create plans for kidnapping and killing a governor.....and it still didn't quite work out because there was so many FBI that it looked entirely set up to even a jury. This was done because they were told to fight these white supremacists who were supposed to be lurking around every corner....yet they didn't catch the one in Buffalo in time, nor that recent one in Florida. The woke need enemies to thrive....but corporate sponsorship just makes them look like tyrants and lame ones at that....instead of the victims they pretend to be. They fail so badly with the political power they're so effective at gaining....they're losing support from the very groups they claim to champion.

They haven't struck gold with any new victim groups....and are running low on enemy groups because the non-woke are increasingly diverse without even trying. They have been pushing for "Christian nationalists" to be the new big enemy....but no one is really buying it. Christians seem harmless compared to the woke....who might destroy your brand (bud light) your family (because your children obsess over gender and race and sexuality) and your very society (which they call evil, and racist, despite pushing racism and sexism and inviting in human traffickers under the guise of asylum).

The woke I think are destroying themselves. There's no moral underpinnings to blatant bigotry and hatred of political enemies. The woke don't offer anyone any help...they just offer a chance to scream at the people that a few hate....guilt free.

Yes I agree with all you have said about the new Woke religion. But what I don't get is how you determine Woke or Christian are morally right or wrong without any moral basis. Like you said the Woke believe they are right, think they are doing good. So from their position they are doing nothing wrong if there is no objective morality. They are just doing something different, perhaps against social trends like some do in defying fashion or art convention.

I don't know what point there is to arguing morality with you. You're unsurprisingly convinced that your "justice" is the correct justice...and everyone who disagrees has something wrong with them. I would imagine you also think your "fairness" or "kindness" are also the correct ones and other ideas of fairness or kindness are similarly corrupted or twisted by those without your true understanding of morality.

Everyone dpes the same. You do the same, well at least in condemning the Woke as wrong like they are objectively wrong as some sort of truth in the world and that perhaps your position is more right because its not like the Woke. This is the nature of morality in that its getting at something thats either right or wrong and not just peoples opinions or feelings

I don't think I am taking the same stand as the Woke just as you do because there is a way to determine the moral truths through objective facts and our lived reality of the embodiment of morality throughout our history. Like you were alluding to that when we dig into what the Woke are claiming we find its inconsistent with reality.

I think moral truths should align with our beliefs, experience and the real workld we live in. So when the Woke claims something we find it inconsistent with objective reality or whats actually happening on the ground. The thing about morality is because we all know that there are certain moral principles like justice and kindness that exist and it really matters to us people can use that 'mattering' for nobel causes to hide other agendas like a trojan horse.

Naturally most people initially give the benefit of the doubt, if its nobel it must be good. So sometimes people with bad or selfish reasons get away with fooling people. But in the end the truth always comes out. Sometimes unfortunately maybe often it takes time and many people are harmed. I think that is why I think growing numbers are saying enough is enough with the Woke. We will look back and see how delusional people became just like with traditional religion and caused so much damage.
.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not necessarily as we see what we would call immoral acts in other species to survive. Humans have a higher moral sense that cannot be explained away by evolution.

I don't see anything unique to human morality that suggests a higher morality. Humans have unique spiritual and aesthetic aspirations, such as an appreciation of transcendence, but that isn't morality per se.

Then you must not have read the articles I linked.

There are hard-wired moral universals. To an important extent, all people have the same morality; the differences that we see—however important they are to our everyday lives—are variations on a theme.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

That actually argues against the notion that morality is the result of revelation from on high, and favors evolutionary explanations for morality.

 

[stevevw]

I don't see anything unique to human morality that suggests a higher morality. Humans have unique spiritual and aesthetic aspirations, such as an appreciation of transcendence, but that isn't morality per se.

Morality itself seems to transcend other types of knowing which are naturalistic. Humes 'Is and Ought problem' claims we cannot derive morality from what is. That would suggest morality is something that transcends the natural world. A bit like beauty, experience of colours or or even consciousness itself.

This seems especially true in that morality is initially a gut reaction, a sense, some call it emotional sense or gut feeling. This suggests that cold hard rationality and scientific reductionism cannot fully explain morality. So in that sense it seems transcendent.

That actually argues against the notion that morality is the result of revelation from on high, and favors evolutionary explanations for morality.

That wasn't my arguement. It was that our moral sense is innate which evolution explanations seem to suggest. As far as evolutionary explanations rendering morality as not being something given by a moral lawgiver I don't think it follows.

It could be that God designed humans to be moral creatures with innate knowledge of His laws as the Bible says. I don't think God just gives moral laws like they are impressed upon us without any ability to relate to them practically. Morality is often practical in its application and makes sense and is not an alien idea that has to be continually indoctrinated into us.

This goes back to the idea that you can't teach someone moral sense like its a math equation or an instruction. We have to be born with a sense that morality means something to be able to take it on and develop it. An empty mind learns nothing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Morality itself seems to transcend other types of knowing which are naturalistic. Humes 'Is and Ought problem' claims we cannot derive morality from what is. That would suggest morality is something that transcends the natural world. A bit like beauty, experience of colours or or even consciousness itself.

This seems especially true in that morality is initially a gut reaction, a sense, some call it emotional sense or gut feeling. This suggests that cold hard rationality and scientific reductionism cannot fully explain morality. So in that sense it seems transcendent.

That wasn't my arguement. It was that our moral sense is innate which evolution explanations seem to suggest. As far as evolutionary explanations rendering morality as not being something given by a moral lawgiver I don't think it follows.

It could be that God designed humans to be moral creatures with innate knowledge of His laws as the Bible says. I don't think God just gives moral laws like they are impressed upon us without any ability to relate to them practically. Morality is often practical in its application and makes sense and is not an alien idea that has to be continually indoctrinated into us.

This goes back to the idea that you can't teach someone moral sense like its a math equation or an instruction. We have to be born with a sense that morality means something to be able to take it on and develop it. An empty mind learns nothing.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have morality be innate, and also transcendent at the same time. Those two notions aren't compatible. What is innate is immanent, generally conceived as the opposite of transcendent.

By transcendence, I am not necessarily speaking of God in the traditional sense, and it would be incorrect to conflate those two notions.

 

[FireDragon76]

It could be that God designed humans to be moral creatures with innate knowledge of His laws as the Bible says.

If that's the case, we don't necessarily need Christianity for morality then. Which I actually think is compatible with a certain Lutheran reading of Paul, particularly Gerhard Forde. However, it's at odds with the tradition of Christian fundamentalist biblicism.

I don't think God just gives moral laws like they are impressed upon us without any ability to relate to them practically. Morality is often practical in its application and makes sense and is not an alien idea that has to be continually indoctrinated into us.

Right, so what exactly is immoral about two gay men living together then? To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, they never break my leg nor pick my pocket. Objections like this just shows the hypocrisy or emptiness of Christian claims to moral expertise...

 

[stevevw]

You can't have it both ways. You can't have morality be innate, and also transcendent at the same time. Those two notions aren't compatible. What is innate is immanent, generally conceived as the opposite of transcendent.

By transcendence, I am not necessarily speaking of God in the traditional sense, and it would be incorrect to conflate those two notions.

The definition of Transcendence is beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience. So I would imagine 'normal or physical human experience' is based on our senses. So from a naturalistic point of view everything is innate even spirituality and transcendence.

Transcedence or spirituality is recognised as a natural human need. Maslows hiearchy of needs has physical needs at the bottom like need for food and shelter. It moves into the emotional and psychological needs but ends at the top with spiritual and transcedent needs like self realisation, meditation ect. So if as naturalists claim that all human behaviour is based in naturalistic explanations then transcedence must have some naturalistic explanation and therefore compatible with something innate.

Like consciousness is said to transcend the physical mind and yet is claimed to be based in the physical brain. The articles I linked that said our moral sense was innate were talking about a knowing or intuition that causes us to empathize with others but is not morality itself. The sense causes us to want to be moral. makes us moral creatures. So in that sense there morality can be innate and transcedent.

 

[stevevw]

If that's the case, we don't necessarily need Christianity for morality then. Which I actually think is compatible with a certain Lutheran reading of Paul, particularly Gerhard Forde. However, it's at odds with the tradition of Christian fundamentalist biblicism.

Actually its not at odds with Christianity. Christianity doesn't mean non Christians cannot know morality. It is that morality can only be understood from Christianity or Gods moral law.

The Pagans professed a morality even though it may have seemed imnmoral to us. The Woke profess a morality. All cultures profess a morality. The interesting thing is most agree on certain core morals which seems to suggest that we are by nature moral creatures at heart and that morality transcends culture or subjective ideas.

Right, so what exactly is immoral about two gay men living together then? To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, they never break my leg nor pick my pocket. Objections like this just shows the hypocrisy or emptiness of Christian claims to moral expertise...

For Christians I guess its about breaching Gods order for creation and nature and not just that its a arbitrary rule. If God is the creatir and moral law giver than His moral laws are consistent with nature and reality.

Remembering that morality about homosexuality is not about being gay perse but like heterosexuals being sexually immoral and not respecting Gods creation. I like to think there is a method to Gods morality that has real meaning in the world. We can find evdience as to why there are such laws rather than the moral laws being just blind rules we must conform to.

 

[FireDragon76]

The definition of Transcendence is beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience. So I would imagine 'normal or physical human experience' is based on our senses. So from a naturalistic point of view everything is innate even spirituality and transcendence.

Transcedence or spirituality is recognised as a natural human need. Maslows hiearchy of needs has physical needs at the bottom like need for food and shelter. It moves into the emotional and psychological needs but ends at the top with spiritual and transcedent needs like self realisation, meditation ect. So if as naturalists claim that all human behaviour is based in naturalistic explanations then transcedence must have some naturalistic explanation and therefore compatible with something innate.

Like consciousness is said to transcend the physical mind and yet is claimed to be based in the physical brain. The articles I linked that said our moral sense was innate were talking about a knowing or intuition that causes us to empathize with others but is not morality itself. The sense causes us to want to be moral. makes us moral creatures. So in that sense there morality can be innate and transcedent.

How do you make the leap from Maslow, to "spirituality", to the Christian God that doles out commandments on stone tablets? There are any number of religious and non-religious ideologies or worldviews associated with "peak experiences".

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually its not at odds with Christianity. Christianity doesn't mean non Christians cannot know morality. It is that morality can only be understood from Christianity or Gods moral law.

Wait, you just said morality is innate. If it's innate, I have no need for an external religious authority to know it, like Christianity.

It seem to me you are contradicting yourself.

For Christians I guess its about breaching Gods order for creation and nature and not just that its a arbitrary rule. If God is the creatir and moral law giver than His moral laws are consistent with nature and reality.

That is a strange definition of nature, considering homosexuality has been observed in many nonhuman species.

Also, the entire edifice of natural law is largely considered a relic of the medieval past. Modern ethical approaches rely more on persons and their psychological needs as fundamental. People aren't metaphysical jigsaw puzzles, they have an inner reality of their own, they are worlds unto themselves, and deserve more dignity than simply being plugged into some system to justify a religious worldview.

 

[FireDragon76]

Christians aren’t saved from doing things that are “sin”, they’re saved from the effects (wages of sin is death) of doing things that are “sin”.
The concept of “total depravity” shows that there is absolutely nothing a human being can do to win God’s favor; any favor a human being receives from God is because the Almighty has chosen to see the work of the Christ in lieu of the human’s activities.

In short a Christian is to live their life as best as they can and when they fail (and yea, verily,) fail miserably, accept that Christ’s work is sufficient to save them from this.

It’s so odd that so many don’t understand their own religion.

This is basic Christianity 101.

It's strange when the least religious people on the forum understand Christianity better than some of the self-professed experts, isn't it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not necessarily as we see what we would call immoral acts in other species to survive. Humans have a higher moral sense that cannot be explained away by evolution.

We do though...we see chimpanzees go to war with each other. The shrike is a bird commonly known for impaling live prey upon thorny trees and bushes to eat and pick at at its leisure.

We don't question these as moral acts because we don't have any sense that they have a capacity for moral reasoning nor any ability to communicate with us.

Then you must not have read the articles I linked.

There are hard-wired moral universals. To an important extent, all people have the same morality; the differences that we see—however important they are to our everyday lives—are variations on a theme.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

'We think children are born with a skeleton of general expectations about fairness and these principles and concepts get shaped in different ways depending on the culture and the environment they’re brought up in.
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months

From the systematic review, the moral sense is found to be innate. However, moral development is fostered by social interactions and environmental factors. First, moral sense is found to be innate in humans; individuals can naturally respond morally to various dilemmas. As seen among children and young infants, moral sense naturally exists. Second, it can be socially nurtured through social interactions and exposure to various environmental factors.
Origin and Development of Moral Sense: A Systematic Review

No...we've been over the articles, and the research. What I posted was behavioral researchers trying to replicate the studies and finding serious methodological flaws. That's it.

The peer review process, the replication that you think is happening....isn't happening. These aren't serious scientific studies.

Pay attention....because they are talking specifically about behavioural sciences.

Replication Crisis

The replication crisis in psychology refers to concerns about the credibility of findings in psychological science. The term, which originated in the early 2010s, denotes that findings in behavioral science often cannot be replicated: Researchers do not obtain results comparable to the original...

www.google.com

Now, what you need to consider is that you've been fed a cow pie....researchers in New Zealand immediately found problems with the Bloom studies and frankly, that's not at all surprising when they involve the interpretation of the behaviour of non-verbal babies.

A new generation of poster children of fraud in behavioral science: What I recommend (i)(ii)

A fraudster’s “first time”: I was alone in my tastefully furnished office at the University. . . . I opened the file with the data that I had entered and changed an unexpected 2 i…

errorstatistics.com

You may notice a connection to "priming" responses in bunko behavioral psychology. That's exactly what the NZ researchers found in the baby studies you're referencing. I'm sorry, but this is garbage science.

No it means we all agree on certain morals in how to treat humans like being kind and not cruel, being fair or just, equal Rights ect. But we vary in how to apply these morals.

Right because "kind" and "cruel" are extremely vague terms that don't really describe any behavior in detail.

I linked some in the previous posts.

“certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. . . . They are instead the products of biological evolution.” Natural selection works, at least in part, at a genetic level, there is a logic to being instinctively kind to our kin, whose survival and well-being promote the spread of our genes. More than that, it is often beneficial for humans to work together with other humans, which means that it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals. All this is reason to consider the innateness of at least basic moral concepts.

Little Angels (Published 2013)

The Yale psychologist Paul Bloom mines child-development research for insights into morality.

www.nytimes.com

Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience
Morality was selected by evolution in our human ancestors in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. Developmental psychologists have demonstrated that some building blocks of morality are in place very early in development [3].
Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience.

Interestingly, brain circuits that are involved in discerning another’s pain overlap brain circuits involved with moral reasoning, emotions, and decision making.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01863/full

Again, while the idea that babies are born moral is fun, and interesting, the reason this garbage got published in the first place is probably because it's fun, and interesting.

I'd like to tell you that behavioral psychology has cleaned up its act, but it hasn't. Again, behavioral psychology has recently been through this bunko science controversy again. You have top of the field experts who have had 50+ papers redacted and resigned.

That seems rather dismissive considering that Anthropology is often done in conjunction with biology/evolution and other sciences.

It's dismissive because anthropology doesn't use any measures. If someone travels deep into the Amazon to visit some barely contacted tribe...it's not something someone could easily check. Let's assume for a moment that your anthropologists are right. Ok. There's over 1000 culturally distinct tribes in Africa alone....today. Arguably, tens of thousands of culturally distinct social groups across time.

60 cultures? They share some vague agreement on kindness? Who cares?

Its an important aspect as its actually understanding human behaviour from what actually happened through texts, tools, architexture and other evdience of past societies. Comparing animal behaviour to humans ect. Look at how Jane Goodall helped understand primate behaviour compared to humans.

Humans are primates

Humans are members of a particular sub-group of mammals known as the primates (Order Primates).

australian.museum

That happens in all areas of science and funding. The point is sociology like anthropology is another aspect and perspective of human behaviour that biology, psychology and neuroscience cannot do. We know that socialisation is an important aspect to understanding human behaviour.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Sociologists look at the bigger picture of how the science data all fits together socially and culturally. If its not sociology then some dicipline is required apart from hard sciences to understand the findings from hard sciences. Primarily that is what Sociology is best at doing and provides useful information through the raw data before its politicised for funding.

Very little sociological research is done without funding. In fact, the funding is literally the reason why peer review in fields like behavioral psychology and sociology have gone to garbage is because of the way research grants work. You get money to feed a narrative.

Yes thats the moral sense.

Then you're talking about emotions.

 

[stevevw]

How do you make the leap from Maslow, to "spirituality", to the Christian God that doles out commandments on stone tablets? There are any number of religious and non-religious ideologies or worldviews associated with "peak experiences".

I'm not making the leap to Christianity or God. Just like I am not saying our innate moral sense doesn't prove the Christian God. I am merely saying that there is something natural about humans knowing morality and belief rather than being an entirely social construct that we just pulled out of nowhere and made ourselves moral and believers.

 

[stevevw]

Wait, you just said morality is innate. If it's innate, I have no need for an external religious authority to know it, like Christianity.

It seem to me you are contradicting yourself.

Having a moral sense is one thing. Its just a natural sense about being moral. That sense can be encultured or indoctrinated in many ideas about what is moral including the radical beliefs that justify immoral acts as good.

That is something that even atheist support with relative/subjective morality. So Christians are just saying that God is the moral law giver that best aligns our morality compared to all the other ways people align their moral sense to.

But the moral sense doesn't automatically make you Christian or cause you to believe in the Christian God. Its just a natural human state that leads us to be moral along with a natural belief in some transcedent source of that morality.

That is a strange definition of nature, considering homosexuality has been observed in many nonhuman species.

I don't know why some species display homosexual behaviour. But as far as nature is concerned it seems natural that a species designed to mate with opposite and complimentary physical features and the ability to produce offspring for survival seems to fit evolution by natural selection for survival of that species.

Also, the entire edifice of natural law is largely considered a relic of the medieval past. Modern ethical approaches rely more on persons and their psychological needs as fundamental. People aren't metaphysical jigsaw puzzles, they have an inner reality of their own, they are worlds unto themselves, and deserve more dignity than simply being plugged into some system to justify a religious worldview.

That is more or less the natural law. Though I think its a bit ambigious as to what exactly is the natural law as it can have different meanings. But to say that humans have fundemental psychological needs is more or less saying by nature we have certain needs that we consider real in the world.

In some ways our innate moral sense even if we say was evolved can relate to natural law in that we are designed to know morality and its realization is its lived reality through our interactions with others. Morality naturally comes out just be engaging with others.

Natural law theory is still relevant today and we rely on it more than we think. Natural Human Rights is premised on this that as humans we have natural rights that cannot be taken away. The US constitution has the same basis in that all humans are born with natural rights.

Natural law is making a comeback where ethicists are turning to how humans can know morality through their conscience which is an inherent part of being human. We make certain things good in of themselves like they are a natural law as the basis for treating others. There are certain qualities about goodness that cannot be rationalised like in science but yet we still give them law like status because as humans we have the ability in the way we are designed to know this.

The evidence and reality of this is in our lived experiences where we play out this goodness or badness towards others and come to know the consequences. No one would arge that torturing a child is good. yet there is no scientific and reductive way of proving this. Yet we hold this as a moral truth like it is a natural law known to humans to live by.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I thought I already replied to this. Don't think that my argument disagreeing with you is ignoring your thought experiment.

You didn't answer at all. When you finally tried, you failed to explain what would be moral/immoral behavior....or why.

It is from that for which we can contemplate our lives and behaviour in the greater scheme of things even if that is the universe itself causing us to think about our moral status in the overall scheme of things. We would still look to the stars in awe and woner if there was some mind behind things. This would lead us to question our behaviour for a higher purpose than just existing as amoral beings.

What's this "we" stuff?

It's a situation where you are utterly alone and always will be.

I disagree and I think the science shows that even without God or belief in a moral lawgiver that we are constantly questioning ourselves, angusihing over our behaviour keeping us awake at night.

Lol I don't think the science shows that.

I think its a misrepresented indicator of where morality comes from.

I think it's the only indicator.

As the evdience seems to show we start off with this moral sense.

Emotions.

I think this is a logical fallacy that because morals can be shifting that morality must be culturally created.

Well a few anonymous surveys would fix that problem.

We'd either see widespread general agreement between individuals in a social group....or widespread general disagreement.


I'd bet strongly on agreement.

Why couldn't it be that morality is innate we all have common moral concerns but some of us can construct cultural ideas about how that should be applied according to the factual circumstances they find themselves in.

Well the common concern seems to be group cooperation.

The idea that a prison or mod culture that may actually create morals that are abhorrent to most people is somehow evdience that there is no moral truths and therefore these abhorrent examples qualify as moral seems self defeating.

It isn't evidence of no morals truths.

It's evidence that the idea of moral truths is inherently absurd.

You don't even have a starting point for proving a moral truth.

Funny you should say that. There is research that shows belonging to a religion and having such beliefs makes people more moral on average.

I don't know how to measure morality and I certainly don't think researchers do either.

That sounds like traditional religion.

In many ways...yeah.

Which supports the idea that you don't have to belong to a church to be religious about morality.

Well you have members of the church on this very page that are clearly woke....so I don't see what that has to do with it.

But atheists find it hard to come up with such a substrate that can make any sense as its based on a metaphysical outlook that cannot always be rationalised or evdienced. That is why ideology like Woke are growing so fast because its a way of replacing traditional religions.

I don't know that atheists are more or less susceptible to different religions.

Yes and not just Peterson but a growing number as already mentioned in this thread earlier. But its interesting that these people were predicting the outcome and were right which speaks of them understanding what was happening in relation to the threat this had on traditional Western principles that built our culture. It seems that every now and then people come along and try to change these truth principles claiming they know better and fail miserably. Thats because its unreal and reality has a way of coming back to bite you.

Well I don't know what truth prinicples you're speaking about here.

I think this is a good example of what you were talking about with prison morality. People take the same moral principles of say justice and then apply it to some ideological belief about what justice is. They justify it on other moral grounds slike being nobel, protecting people ect.

But this is not really about nobel principles like justice. There is always an underlying ideology driving things. Often in contradiction to the facts and reality. When we look at things objectively and in the reality of our liveed experience and the lessons we have learnt over millenia we see the unreality and lies.

1. You never look at things "objectively".

2. Our lived experiences are different...everyone's.

3. You haven't learned lessons over millenia, certainly not by lived experience.

Yes I agree with all you have said about the new Woke religion. But what I don't get is how you determine Woke or Christian are morally right or wrong without any moral basis.

Who says I don't have a moral basis?

Like you said the Woke believe they are right, think they are doing good.

Right.

So from their position they are doing nothing wrong if there is no objective morality.

Right.

They are just doing something different, perhaps against social trends like some do in defying fashion or art convention.

Right.

Everyone dpes the same.

Right.

You do the same, well at least in condemning the Woke as wrong

Wrong about what exactly?

The woke and I tend to agree that children can't consent.

Where we disagree are that...

1. Parents can consent to unnecessary medical/psychological treatments for their children.
2. That they are helping solve some sort of problem.

like they are objectively wrong as some sort of truth in the world and that perhaps your position is more right because its not like the Woke.

Well they can't even explain the problem they believe they are helping.

If they can't spot a problem....what chance do they have fixing it?

This is the nature of morality in that its getting at something thats either right or wrong and not just peoples opinions or feelings

Let's imagine that tomorrow we had a magical machine that could "identify" someone's gender before even they do....to 100% certainty.

My opinion on this would change immediately.

I don't expect the machine can exist though because I don't think gender does.

I don't think I am taking the same stand as the Woke just as you do because there is a way to determine the moral truths through objective facts and our lived reality of the embodiment of morality throughout our history.

"Moral truth" is a nonsense statement.

Like you were alluding to that when we dig into what the Woke are claiming we find its inconsistent with reality.

No offense, but this forum used to have an apologetics section. It doesn't now. It's not because the posters here have done well at finding some transcendent truth throughout history and blah blah blah.

It's because someone looked at the Ws and Ls and decided apologetics wasn't a net positive for "the faith".

I think moral truths should align with our beliefs, experience and the real workld we live in. So when the Woke claims something we find it inconsistent with objective reality or whats actually happening on the ground. The thing about morality is because we all know that there are certain moral principles like justice and kindness that exist and it really matters to us people can use that 'mattering' for nobel causes to hide other agendas like a trojan horse.

Naturally most people initially give the benefit of the doubt, if its nobel it must be good. So sometimes people with bad or selfish reasons get away with fooling people. But in the end the truth always comes out. Sometimes unfortunately maybe often it takes time and many people are harmed. I think that is why I think growing numbers are saying enough is enough with the Woke. We will look back and see how delusional people became just like with traditional religion and caused so much damage.

I think they are primarily cowards.

They had different moral beliefs....and they quickly adopted the new moral opinions of their peer group because that peer group was pressured into conformity.

Lots of "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" and "silence/inaction is consent" and lots of dumb sloganeering was all it took for them to abandon their previous values.

Imagine if tomorrow (Sunday) you went to church...and everyone had a different set of morals....and upon examination, all Christian churches did. Would you walk away? Abandon all your friends and family? Remain a lone voice for what you believe no matter how you were disparaged?

It seems as if the most likely answer is no. You would not. Perhaps you would...but I think most people find that sort of ostracization difficult to bear.

The fact is I noticed it immediately and frankly, I have never held the opinions of others regarding me, or my morality, in high regard. It doesn't matter to me if I'm hated by everyone for who I am....I can bear that. I quite simply hate the idea of being liked....or even tolerated....for who I am not.

I need no agreement for my morals. I ask no agreement for mine. It's not something I require of anyone. I may withhold my opinion on anything that I don't care about....but if pressed....you will ultimately learn what I think, and if I must be pressed, you probably won't like it.

 

[rjs330]

Good Lord, you are still confused. That first sentence is gramatically nonsensical and scientifically absurd. I just can't parse it.

Just stop using sex as meaning gender. Sex refers to biological sex. Chromosomes, penis, vagina, gestes, ovaries etc. They are obviously not socially determined. They are biological facts. With obvious and incredibly few exceptions it is either/or. Gender generally aligns with sex. But not always. Because gender is on a spectrum.

No gender is not on a spectrum. It's male or female. And it refers to the biological sex.

If it's a spectrum there has to be two end points, male and female. And at some point you arrive at one end or the other. When is that? What exactly is male and female? How do you know that you have actually arrived at the end point? When a man says he is a woman how does he know he has arrived at woman?

What IS a woman by gender? How would anyone know they have arrived there?

 

[FireDragon76]

Having a moral sense is one thing. Its just a natural sense about being moral. That sense can be encultured or indoctrinated in many ideas about what is moral including the radical beliefs that justify immoral acts as good.

That is something that even atheist support with relative/subjective morality. So Christians are just saying that God is the moral law giver that best aligns our morality compared to all the other ways people align their moral sense to.

But the moral sense doesn't automatically make you Christian or cause you to believe in the Christian God. Its just a natural human state that leads us to be moral along with a natural belief in some transcedent source of that morality.

I don't know why some species display homosexual behaviour. But as far as nature is concerned it seems natural that a species designed to mate with opposite and complimentary physical features and the ability to produce offspring for survival seems to fit evolution by natural selection for survival of that species

That notion has been debunked before, that sex only exists for reproduction. Humans and higher animals aren't fruit flies.

That is more or less the natural law.

Natural law has no account of human subjectivity or personhood. It's trying to fit people in their concrete particularities into an abstract humanity. And if you are of a marginalized group of people, it tends to pathologize you.

Natural law theory is still relevant today and we rely on it more than we think. Natural Human Rights is premised on this that as humans we have natural rights that cannot be taken away. The US constitution has the same basis in that all humans are born with natural rights.

Which doesn't prove it is the best account of ethics or morality.

Natural law is making a comeback where ethicists are turning to how humans can know morality through their conscience which is an inherent part of being human.

I haven't seen any evidence that natural law is gaining much ground among ethicists, anymore than competing theories such as virtue ethics, ethics of care, or more especially, utilitarianism. Appealing to an abstract human nature and it's supposed purpose is decidedly medieval thinking that rests on metaphysical presuppositions that are not necessarily self-evident.

The evidence and reality of this is in our lived experiences where we play out this goodness or badness towards others and come to know the consequences. No one would arge that torturing a child is good. yet there is no scientific and reductive way of proving this.

Are you serious? We know torturing children is bad because we ourselves wouldn't want to be tortured, as conscious beings capable of feeling pain. See, there is no convoluted appeal to abstractions involved...

 

[Pommer]

No gender is not on a spectrum. It's male or female. And it refers to the biological sex.

If it's a spectrum there has to be two end points, male and female. And at some point you arrive at one end or the other. When is that? What exactly is male and female? How do you know that you have actually arrived at the end point? When a man says he is a woman how does he know he has arrived at woman?

What IS a woman by gender? How would anyone know they have arrived there?

Plumbing≠identity but thanks for playing.

 

[stevevw]

You didn't answer at all. When you finally tried, you failed to explain what would be moral/immoral behavior....or why.

Ok I thought that was enough by explaining why. In explaining that we would still be conscious beings aware of ourselves, our surroundings and our place in the universe as aprt of something greater would be enough to have a conscience and look inwards.

Having a conscience even when on our own will cause us to be concerned about the way we live and behave. It doesn't matter what that may be, it could be about unreal and silly things or it may be about something greater like how we treat the environment but we will be concerned one way or another about what sort of life we live.

What's this "we" stuff?

It's a situation where you are utterly alone and always will be.

I don't think it matters a person is on their own. We will still be conscious beings with a conscience. That conscience is going to cause us to be concerned with stuff, questioning ourselves, our place in the greater scheme of things, questioning our behaviour. That is the nature of being a conscious being with a conscience.

Lol I don't think the science shows that.

You don't need science. We know we have a conscience as part of being human. That will kick in at some stage questioning our behaviour otherwise humans may as well not have a conscience. Someone on their own may pollute the water source or poison some trees because we neglected to care about the environment. Like I said we may even moralise over something silly that not even moral. The point is if we are born with a moral sense then it will kick in at some stage.

I think it's the only indicator.

So if someone on their own has a God then they are moral. Even if its an imaginary god. But I am interesteed in why you think its a problem that we need others around for morality. This doesn't negate the fact that we have an innate moral sense. I think the fact that people bring morality out shows that morality is a natural part of being human. Your actually making the case for innate morality.

Emotions.

First saying they are emotions doesn't lesson that they are associated with how we treat others. If emotions cause us to be concerned about how we treat others then that turns into morality. Second if morality was only about feelings then we should not worry about how we treat others because feelings are not right or wrong. I feel that peas taste horrible but that doesn't make it morally wrong.

Well a few anonymous surveys would fix that problem.

We'd either see widespread general agreement between individuals in a social group....or widespread general disagreement.

I'd bet strongly on agreement.

That seems to go against common sense. If you put 20 people from different cultures in a room as asked whether it was better to abuse a child or be kind to them I would imagine at least 90% would agree that its better to treat a child kindly. The same with a number of core morals and anyone who said the opposite I guarentee the the majority would look at them if not be condemning them that they were crazy and did not want them as part of any decent community.

The disagreement fallacy is overblown. It looks for differences and not things in common. But when we do look for commom morality we find them. Often the disagreement is not about the moral itself but the facts about the moral situation. For example a culture who did not have the facts about the benefits of vacines and thought it was immoral to vacinate their kid would agree that its good to vacinate if they were shown the facts that it saves lives.

The reason anti vaxers don't want their kid to get vacinated is because they love their kid and want the best for them. The reason people get their kids vacinated is because they love them and want the best for them. So both sides have the same moral that they want the best for their kid but just disagree about the facts surrounding vacinations. Its the same for most moral situations.

Well the common concern seems to be group cooperation.

And from that common concern we will derive common behaviour that helps us cooperate. The question is why do we want to cooperate and how that should be achieved. There will be certain morals that we agree on that help a society get along like don't steal from each other or murder each other because that causes chaos and conflict.

From that there may be other common morals like well if we are going to get along to have a life then we can live a relatively healthy and happy life. So human wellbeing is important. There may be common morals about how to achieve that as well. They naturally come out of people living together otherwise as you said we won't be living in a society that is getting along.

It isn't evidence of no morals truths.

It's evidence that the idea of moral truths is inherently absurd.

You don't even have a starting point for proving a moral truth.

Yes you do, like don't murder or steal from people because its wrong. It harms them, causes conflict, destablises society and disrespects humans. That is why we put people in prisons for not being moral in that sense. So we have already passed judgement of the prison and mob morality and have removed them from society shows that we have objectively said their behaviour is wrong, wrong enough to remove them from society.

The absurd thing is that we cannot acknowledge that and must go along with the idea that we cannot say the prison moral or lack there of is wrong because there is no such thing as being morally wrong in any objective way. We would have to admit that we denied other people their right to live as we do free in society because of our subjective feelings. Which seems silly as feelings are not an objective measure of what is right and wrong.

I don't know how to measure morality and I certainly don't think researchers do either.

Thats silly. We have already done so with laws and human rights that we force on people. Are you saying that we are enforcing some moral that could not be measured and therefore we are not justified in enforcing that. If we are honest we know what is right and wrong in some cases at least. Stabbing a baby in the face is wrong and anyone that says its not or even the absurd idea that it may be morally ok seems crazy that we cannot take a stand and say no you are wrong, stop it.

In many ways...yeah.

But if there are no objective morals then how can you condemn them as being bad or wrong or whatever that you don't want them in our society causing problems. Or is that just your personal opinion.

Well you have members of the church on this very page that are clearly woke....so I don't see what that has to do with it.

You missed my point. I am saying that you can be religious without belonging to a church. Therefore this shows that humans are natural believers in something bigger than themselves which they want to push on others. This is supported by research. Belief in transcendent ideas is a natural part of being human.

I don't know that atheists are more or less susceptible to different religions.'

Its not so much being supceptible to religious belief in the traditional sense but being supceptible to some transcendent belief about the world and reality. We all appeal to some metaphysical belief about reality even if thats science itself.

Well I don't know what truth prinicples you're speaking about here.

I alluded to them when I said the traditional Western principles that built our culture. Like freedom of speech which Peterson is objecting to Wokist wanting to shut him down. Or even freedom of religion when they attacj people for simply proclaiming their beliefs about sex or gender. Or a the idea that we are responsible for ourselves rather than society favoring some over others as the woke do. Or that all whites are racist ect ect ect.

1. You never look at things "objectively".

Yes we do. You just gave a long speech about how bad Woke is, how its undermining and edividing todays society. Was that just an opinion or were you speaking about something that is real, is affecting society and we can measure the badness of Woke. You gave me many examples which seemed common sense, and real.

2. Our lived experiences are different...everyone's.

3. You haven't learned lessons over millenia, certainly not by lived experience.

Our lived experience as a culture as a world is real and we can look back and learn, derive some truths out of our bad and good experiences as a culture. We can look back and say everytime we allow people to steal it causes chaos and use those experiences. From the 2nd WW we used the devastation of the Jews being treated inhumanely to make Human Rights.

We have seen this type of behaviour before and each time it didn't end well. Surely we can use this to make some principles about how we should treat each other. In fact we already knew these truths but we had not encoded them as such like HR. We tell each other stories and fables (the moral of the story is) throughout our history.

Who says I don't have a moral basis?

I mean an objective one that is beyond your personal and subjective ones.

Right.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Wrong about what exactly?
The woke and I tend to agree that children can't consent.
Where we disagree are that...
1. Parents can consent to unnecessary medical/psychological treatments for their children.
2. That they are helping solve some sort of problem.

But how can you both agree or disagree if there is no objective measure that can determine who is right or wrong. Otherwise both sides will be forever going back and forth with exchanging different views and never working out who is actually telling the truth.

By the way I think at least for some those in positions of influence regarding gender dysphoria treatment actually do think kids can give consent. That they know their gender from virtually year 1. That is why they are pushing for self identity without having to go to court.

But you brought up an interesting point about moral truth. That we can peel back what what is actually happening, discover the true motives and beliefs and then check to see if they stand up. You can give your arguements for how the Woke are wrong according to the same moral principles we all know.

Like you said its about child consent then what is the evdience for child consent. You said "they are helping solve some sort of problem". What exactly is the problem they think they are trying to solve.

Well they can't even explain the problem they believe they are helping.

That perhaps is revealing of whether what they say conforms to facts and reality. I think whatever the truth may be, part of it should conform with reality. But also part of it should conform with our lived experience. How we actually live.

If they can't spot a problem....what chance do they have fixing it?

Exactly

Let's imagine that tomorrow we had a magical machine that could "identify" someone's gender before even they do....to 100% certainty.

My opinion on this would change immediately.

I don't expect the machine can exist though because I don't think gender does.

Well in some ways we have that machine now. Its called science. To some extent if not a large extent gender incongruence is hormone and genetic maybe more epigenetic. But also environmental. But its complicated because there is also expression of how a person feels and that can be influenced by culture. But I think at least for some we can pretty well predict incongruence through hormone imbalance.

"Moral truth" is a nonsense statement.

Morasl truth is like fact or law. It holds enough status to be classed as fact like physical laws and facts. Its just measured a different way. I think truth fits better as morals are more about abstract principles and truth seems to be a self evident principle that there is only one truth for some things. Morality is a case of either being right or wrong and no in betweens. Or at least thats how we behave when it comes to morality.

No offense, but this forum used to have an apologetics section. It doesn't now. It's not because the posters here have done well at finding some transcendent truth throughout history and blah blah blah.

It's because someone looked at the Ws and Ls and decided apologetics wasn't a net positive for "the faith".

Sorry what is Ws and Ls.

I think they are primarily cowards.

They had different moral beliefs....and they quickly adopted the new moral opinions of their peer group because that peer group was pressured into conformity.

Yes it seems to have many hallmarks of religious fundementalism. Or getting that way. Which for me says that since we have rejected God people have gone looking for a replacement of some sort.

Lots of "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" and "silence/inaction is consent" and lots of dumb sloganeering was all it took for them to abandon their previous values.

Imagine if tomorrow (Sunday) you went to church...and everyone had a different set of morals....and upon examination, all Christian churches did. Would you walk away? Abandon all your friends and family? Remain a lone voice for what you believe no matter how you were disparaged?

Man I'd have to think hard about that. Whether to escape and start my own hideaway some place lol. Or stay and fight. As I get older the hideaway is looking better all the time.

It seems as if the most likely answer is no. You would not. Perhaps you would...but I think most people find that sort of ostracization difficult to bear.

Yeah I am interested in seeing what happens with Jordan Peterson. I think the Woke may have bitten off more than they can chew with that one. I would not like to be the educator who has to re-educate a Professor of Clinical Psychology and the rest of his vast knowledge on DEI lol.

The fact is I noticed it immediately and frankly, I have never held the opinions of others regarding me, or my morality, in high regard. It doesn't matter to me if I'm hated by everyone for who I am....I can bear that. I quite simply hate the idea of being liked....or even tolerated....for who I am not.

I need no agreement for my morals. I ask no agreement for mine. It's not something I require of anyone. I may withhold my opinion on anything that I don't care about....but if pressed....you will ultimately learn what I think, and if I must be pressed, you probably won't like it.

Yes and I am the same. Maybe its personality. Some people keep quiet and don't want to rock the boat and some can't stand remaining quiet if there is something wrong, an injustice or unkind act. Especially when it comes to kids.

But also I think depending on how educated you are as well some people can see it coming like you said with Peterson and others. People who don't understand or are swept up in the ideology just think they are either crazy, a trouble maker or deluded.

The strange and ironic thing is that desription fits so well for the ideological thinking especially the current state of affairs. Its fascinating but also sad that people can be so opposite like that. This seems to imply that someone is right and someone is wrong no matter which way you look at it.

 

[rjs330]

Plumbing≠identity but thanks for playing.

Now you are referring to biological sex. When you say plumbing are you referring to genitalia? I'm going to guess you are. I wasn't talking about plumbing. I'm talking about gender. Your statement doesn't answer my questions at all.

If gender is a spectrum and the spectrum has male in one end and female on the other, how does one know they have arrived at the male or female end? What exactly is the male gender and the female gender? When a man says he is a woman how does he know he has arrived at that gender? What exactly is he identifying as?

Your trite comment doesn't answer any of those questions.