Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

I can't prove that X amount of intelligence leads to Y amount of compassion. I mean I guess I could find some scientific paper on it, and then we could argue forever about whether it's actually possible to prove anything but mathematics or whatever. But to me it appears to be self-evident that a grown human has a more sophisticated capacity for compassion and moral judgments (like the trolley problem) than a chimpanzee or a small child, and that it is directly connected to mental faculties like empathy, intelligence etc. And like I said before, that explains why humans have a stronger tendency for sacrificial love.

I see what you mean, however compassion does not relate to brain "capacity." At least not evidentially. Unless like I said you can prove that assertion. As far as I know smarter people are not necessarily nicer, and more likely than not, they are less patient with us normal people.

 

[createdtoworship]

No. If Person A does not love Person B and Person B wants Person A to love them, that does not mean Person A hates Person B.

at least not from their perspective. But that may or may not be reciprocated in the perception of the receiving party of that rejection. As I have said a few posts earlier, when loving someone it is important to receive feed back to make sure they are interpreting your love, as love. If they don't receive that as love, is it a full and true love? I am not talking about tough love from a parent, that is an exception to the rule. I am talking more generally speaking. Say I buy a vacuum cleaner for my wife for our anniversary. I know that the vacuum cleaner broke last week and so does she. But will she receive that as a love gift? Or a gift that means "clean the house for me." My wife bought me a barbecue for my birthday one year, and she was so offended that I interpreted the gift as "in your spare time, why don't you cook me some dinner." I looked at the gift as work. Yes she was loving me, in her mind. But that love was not reciprocated. I viewed it and was offended at it. In my mind she was using the birthday as a reason to increase my work load and was not truly trying to give me something I loved. I was hurt by her love. I would not say that she hated me, but the love definitely was not taken as love. Sort of like when I bought her a vacuum cleaner. These are simple mistakes by young married couples. Don't make the same mistake in this thread. Also, another poster said that we can be neutral. And I asked, if a woman says to you to marry her and move in with her and you say, I am neutral toward that idea. That is like crushing her little heart. That neutrality was not neutral toward her, that was hate to her. You may simply have not been ready for that commitment, you did not hate her, but to her that neutrality was taken as hatred. You were not loving her at that point.

 

[Kylie]

at least not from their perspective. But that may or may not be reciprocated in the perception of the receiving party of that rejection. As I have said a few posts earlier, when loving someone it is important to receive feed back to make sure they are interpreting your love, as love. If they don't receive that as love, is it a full and true love? I am not talking about tough love from a parent, that is an exception to the rule. I am talking more generally speaking. Say I buy a vacuum cleaner for my wife for our anniversary. I know that the vacuum cleaner broke last week and so does she. But will she receive that as a love gift? Or a gift that means "clean the house for me." My wife bought me a barbecue for my birthday one year, and she was so offended that I interpreted the gift as "in your spare time, why don't you cook me some dinner." I looked at the gift as work. Yes she was loving me, in her mind. But that love was not reciprocated. I viewed it and was offended at it. In my mind she was using the birthday as a reason to increase my work load and was not truly trying to give me something I loved. I was hurt by her love. I would not say that she hated me, but the love definitely was not taken as love. Sort of like when I bought her a vacuum cleaner. These are simple mistakes by young married couples. Don't make the same mistake in this thread. Also, another poster said that we can be neutral. And I asked, if a woman says to you to marry her and move in with her and you say, I am neutral toward that idea. That is like crushing her little heart. That neutrality was not neutral toward her, that was hate to her. You may simply have not been ready for that commitment, you did not hate her, but to her that neutrality was taken as hatred. You were not loving her at that point.

I get the feeling that you are moving the goalposts here.

If I am in love with Jack and Jack does not love me, do I have the right to say Jack hates me?

No I don't. Your examples are based on different dynamics and as such they don't apply.

 

[Ken-1122]

from your perspective it's not hate, but it is from hers.

No, she may feel rejected, but not hated.

I don't disagree with this. But when you hate yourself out of love for others, it is not possible to hate them while hating yourself.

If you hate yourself out of love, there is something very wrong with you IMO

like I said before, from your perspective you are neutral, but not from others perspectives

You are wrong. If she knows me, she will know when I am neutral. And if she has any questions, she will ask me.

sorry to break it to you, peer reviews are not proof. Scientific consensus is not proof. While they may build on your evidence. Scientists a few hundred years ago universally believed in God, and even the majority today (51% or so), believe in the existence of God. Does that mean He exists? You would rightly claim that that is an appeal to the populus, which has not truth value. What the majority believe, does not make it true. Evidence and more specifically proof, makes it true.

Like I said, if you have evidence that a mirage is not the result of the bending of light, feel free to prove otherwise.

wait, in your last post you said that temperature does not deal with real numbers. Lets talk about that, did you look it up and realize that this statement is wrong?

According to the link you provided, a real number is a value of continuous quantity. The temperature water boils does not fit this description; thus you are wrong again.

It's ok. I won't harp on you. But yes temperature deals with mathmatical concepts, even though there is no arithmatic involved. It uses real numbers, which is within the scope of a mathmatics class.

Math is calculating numbers. To point to 1 number is not calculating it. Your argument failed

 

[createdtoworship]

I get the feeling that you are moving the goalposts here.

If I am in love with Jack and Jack does not love me, do I have the right to say Jack hates me?

No I don't. Your examples are based on different dynamics and as such they don't apply.

this is not about the right to say something or not. It's about the dynamics of love and hate. The Bible further declares this dicotomy: "if you are not for me you are against me." The Bible further defines hatred as murder, and lust as adultery. So this is not my own idea. But I did show how it can have practical implications within the world. What someone views as neutral, to others it is hatred.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, she may feel rejected, but not hated.


If you hate yourself out of love, there is something very wrong with you IMO

rejection simulates hatred in someone that desires a relationship.

You are wrong. If she knows me, she will know when I am neutral. And if she has any questions, she will ask me.

Neutrality is often not seen as neutrality, when prodded by questions about it.

Like I said, if you have evidence that a mirage is not the result of the bending of light, feel free to prove otherwise.

no, no, no. You can't make me prove a positive statement that you made. You said mirages are real. You can't tell me to prove they are not real. This is the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof.

According to the link you provided, a real number is a value of continuous quantity. The temperature water boils does not fit this description; thus you are wrong again.

how do you know that the temperature of water is not a value of continous quantity. Isn't the temperature of a boiling point, continuous? And a steady value? I am not sure that source really is trying to say that the numbers that temperature reference are not real numbers. Any one familiar with math, knows that is not the case. And the fact that you don't is actually surprising to me.


Math is calculating numbers. To point to 1 number is not calculating it. Your argument failed

 

[Ken-1122]

rejection simulates hatred in someone that desires a relationship.

Not for me it doesn't, nor for the people I know.

no, no, no. You can't make me prove a positive statement that you made. You said mirages are real. You can't tell me to prove they are not real. This is the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof.

I'm saying mirages have a logical explanation. If you don't want to believe that explanation that's your choice, but I believe the explanation.

how do you know that the temperature of water is not a value of continous quantity. Isn't the temperature of a boiling point, continuous? And a steady value? I am not sure that source really is trying to say that the numbers that temperature reference are not real numbers. Any one familiar with math, knows that is not the case. And the fact that you don't is actually surprising to me.

Math is calculating numbers. To point to 1 number is not calculating it. Your argument failed

 

[createdtoworship]

Not for me it doesn't, nor for the people I know.

That is your opinion.

I'm saying mirages have a logical explanation. If you don't want to believe that explanation that's your choice, but I believe the explanation.

but you cannot prove they exist.

Math is calculating numbers. To point to 1 number is not calculating it. Your argument failed

math is a wider subject than arithmatic

 

[Ken-1122]

That is your opinion.

No, that is a fact. I know myself and the people I associate with; you don't. You are not qualified to refute my claim on this.

but you cannot prove they exist.

I have personally seen mirages myself so their existence has been proven to me.

math is a wider subject than arithmatic

I didn't say arithmetic, I said calculations.

 

[Kylie]

this is not about the right to say something or not. It's about the dynamics of love and hate. The Bible further declares this dicotomy: "if you are not for me you are against me." The Bible further defines hatred as murder, and lust as adultery. So this is not my own idea. But I did show how it can have practical implications within the world. What someone views as neutral, to others it is hatred.

Just because someone interprets it as hatred, doesn't mean hatred is actually there, and it is unfair to treat people based on nothing more than your interpretation of what they have done. I was once on the receiving end of that, a coworker made my work life pretty miserable once because she thought I had made a false report about her when I hadn't.

In any case, the idea that anyone who is not your friend must be your enemy is a very dangerous one. It's a false dichotomy. And, need I remind you - only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, that is a fact. I know myself and the people I associate with; you don't. You are not qualified to refute my claim on this.

can you prove this claim? If you cannot prove it to others it is not a fact. And how exactly would you prove to me how people think and treat you?

I have personally seen mirages myself so their existence has been proven to me.

how do you know it was not a hallucination? Can you objectively prove it was not?

I didn't say arithmetic, I said calculations.

for our purposes here these are basically the same when applied mathematically.

 

[createdtoworship]

Just because someone interprets it as hatred, doesn't mean hatred is actually there, and it is unfair to treat people based on nothing more than your interpretation of what they have done. I was once on the receiving end of that, a coworker made my work life pretty miserable once because she thought I had made a false report about her when I hadn't.

it is very important when we treat people to get feedback, into their interpretation of that. For example I can say to to a hispanic or african american that they are very tan, and that I don't tan well. But that may be interpreted wrong on His or Her end. Understanding and respecting the feedback of others helps us avoid uncomfortable situations and to love more effectively.

In any case, the idea that anyone who is not your friend must be your enemy is a very dangerous one. It's a false dichotomy. And, need I remind you - only a Sith deals in absolutes.

this is a much different comment from what you made earlier:

No. If Person A does not love Person B and Person B wants Person A to love them, that does not mean Person A hates Person B.

I was adressing the later comment, never did I say that someone who is not a friend is an enemy, There seems to be a shifting in how you are dealing with this subject that is like moving the goal posts. Simply read the two comments, and see if you have not shifted.

 

[Kylie]

I was adressing the later comment, never did I say that someone who is not a friend is an enemy, There seems to be a shifting in how you are dealing with this subject that is like moving the goal posts. Simply read the two comments, and see if you have not shifted.

I don't see how.

In post 639, you said that if Person A loves Person B, but Person B does not reciprocate that love, then person A will interpret that as hate. Sure sounds like, "If you don't love me, you must hate me."

 

[Ken-1122]

can you prove this claim? If you cannot prove it to others it is not a fact. And how exactly would you prove to me how people think and treat you?

It doesn’t matter what I can prove or not, it involves me and people I know so I know it is the truth.

how do you know it was not a hallucination? Can you objectively prove it was not?

I know what I saw. Proving anything to you or anybody else is necessary for me to know it.

for our purposes here these are basically the same when applied mathematically.

Didn’t you just say math is more than just arithmetic? Now you trying to claim they are the same? How much more flip flopping you plan to do? Try picking a position and sticking to it; okay?

 

[stevil]

If morality comes from God and God only...

But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

You would need to clearly define what is meant by morality.

You would then need to define how the truth can be discovered in such a way that it validates one (falsifiable) explanation and invalidates the opposing (falsifiable) explanation.

The explanation that is falsified becomes untenable and must be discarded.

But you must be clear on the criteria and the opposing criteria, they both must be falsifiable and the evidence that you are then in search for must address both claims in opposite ways (validating one and falsifying the other) you don't want to get into a "Sagan's dragon" situation where you need to keep changing your explanation so as to keep it alive in spite of evidence coming forth that would seemingly falsify it.
e.g.
Claimer: I have a fire breathing Dragon in my garage.
Skeptic: Well, I went into your garage and couldn't see any dragon, therefore your claim is proven false.
Claimer: Oh, but my dragon is invisible.
Skeptic: Well, I measured the heat in your garage and it was all at room temperature, there is no fire so your fire breathing dragon is proven false.
Claimer: Oh, but my dragon's fire is heatless.
and so on and so forth, swings and roundabouts...

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't see how.

In post 639, you said that if Person A loves Person B, but Person B does not reciprocate that love, then person A will interpret that as hate. Sure sounds like, "If you don't love me, you must hate me."

I did say that, but what you said I said, was "he who is not a friend is an enemy." While God says that in His word, I cannot prove it's validity. I take it on faith that it is true. But I personally never made that statement in this thread. God did it. So if you have a problem with God. You should try talking to Him first before talking to me.

 

[createdtoworship]

It doesn’t matter what I can prove or not, it involves me and people I know so I know it is the truth.

well sir I guess your statement is begging the question for what is truth. If you cannot relay that truth in a provable manner, you can't expect us to view it as truth.

I know what I saw. Proving anything to you or anybody else is necessary for me to know it.


Didn’t you just say math is more than just arithmetic? Now you trying to claim they are the same? How much more flip flopping you plan to do? Try picking a position and sticking to it; okay?

math< than arithmatic

and my second statment

calculations = arithmatic

I hope you don't look at misrepresenting what I said as a refutation.

so far your argument is very easy to dismantle, so much I haven't even needed to rely on any google searches at all.

 

[Ken-1122]

well sir I guess your statement is begging the question for what is truth. If you cannot relay that truth in a provable manner, you can't expect us to view it as truth.

I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else; never said I was. I'm just pointing out how I know for me and my friends, we don't equate rejection with hatred. If you or anybody else don't want to take my word for it, I don't care; I have no interest in trying to convince you

math< than arithmatic

and my second statment

calculations = arithmatic

I hope you don't look at misrepresenting what I said as a refutation.

so far your argument is very easy to dismantle, so much I haven't even needed to rely on any google searches at all.

Math is calculating numbers. Arithmetic is one of many branches of math. So even though all arithmetic equations are calculations, calculations are not limited to arithmetic; so your claim that calculations = arithmetic is wrong thus your argument fails.

 

[Kylie]

I did say that, but what you said I said, was "he who is not a friend is an enemy." While God says that in His word, I cannot prove it's validity. I take it on faith that it is true. But I personally never made that statement in this thread. God did it. So if you have a problem with God. You should try talking to Him first before talking to me.

You are missing my point. Your statement was of the form, "If you are not in this particular category, then you are diametrically opposed in every way to that category." A false dichotomy.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else; never said I was. I'm just pointing out how I know for me and my friends, we don't equate rejection with hatred. If you or anybody else don't want to take my word for it, I don't care; I have no interest in trying to convince you


Math is calculating numbers. Arithmetic is one of many branches of math. So even though all arithmetic equations are calculations, calculations are not limited to arithmetic; so your claim that calculations = arithmetic is wrong thus your argument fails.

so like I said math is greater than calculations or arithmetic, and arithmetic and calculations are basically the same. So your point fails miserably. And as far as convincing me or anyone else, that is not the point, having proof is the point. Which you don't have.