But it is a representation of how we observe the laws of reality to work. That is why we find it useful.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"A" (as in Aristotelean logic) doesn´t even exist in this universe. It´s mental abstraction that doesn´t point to anything in particular. Logic determines what may or may not be said within the formal system of binary language without this language getting meaningless. Very useful, yet not a representation of reality but of a certain way of thinking.
Nobody makes that claim.
But it is not the name that I feel is an over reach. It is the claim we know it to be "all that exists".As a matter of fact, science claims to know approx. 4% of the Universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. But not knowing the entirety of the Universe doesn't prevent us from giving it a name.
In general I find that atheists are great at accepting a position of "I don't know". It is a satisfactory answer especially if the data is not readily available and the conclusions have not been thoroughly and critically tested.
That's why the scientific method exists, its a method of discovery. If all was known then you wouldn't need a method of discovery.
They don't have to know all that exists, in order to give it a name. They just say; "all the material that exist, whether we know of it or not, is called "X". Why is this an over reach?You literally just quoted the definition of universe and stated that it is, by definition, all that exists.
But it is not the name that I feel is an over reach. It is the claim we know it to be "all that exists".
Although, we have not even one example of a "being" that exists outside of our space time.I agree. That is the really the basis of my point. We can not claim to know the limits to a hypothetical being that exists outside our space time continuum.
Ultimately, moral intuitions are just feelings, but they're feelings that orient us toward the success of the group before success of the individual, and that in turn facilitates the success of the individual.
Morality is a measure of an action's usefulness to your community/society's well-being, so if you care about your society, then it follows that you should behave morally, and that's where the prescriptive element comes in.
In my understanding, logic is more like a linguistic reprensantation of one way of our thinking - we impose this way of thinking upon reality. This is useful, since we want to have a relationship with reality, and thus the way we work needs to be part of it.But it is a representation of how we observe the laws of reality to work. That is why we find it useful.
There is something to be said for the practical value of keeping those closest to you happy, but even without that, adultery carries risks to one’s personal reputation, health, and future circumstances which could easily translate to a burden to the group. There’s nothing inherently harmful about taking multiple partners, but doing so when it constitutes a breach of contract does carry social consequences.It's an interesting idea in the abstract, but there seems to be a disconnect. For example, if your wife commits adultery I don't suppose you say, "Honey, you're undermining the success of the group which in turn undermines your success and mine!" The evolutionary approach is an interesting justification, but it doesn't jibe with the phenomenology of morality.
Yes, that’s the catch. Morality isn’t binding for people who are truly above social consequences. But how many people like that do you know? Even dictators can face consequences if their opposition is strong enough. It can often be shown that anyone who doubts the value of the success of the group without also devaluing one’s own success is wrong.This seems to be key. Your account is hypothetical, not categorical, and yet our experience of morality is categorical. Kant isn't my favorite, but he did see that morality is categorical. One consequence of this difference is that Christian morality and evolutionary morality are very different animals. You gave an evolutionary account of our moral feelings, but your identification of the source of moral feeling brings with it the possibility of acting contrary to those feelings. All you have to do is doubt the value of the success of the group and morality is no longer binding.
Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.
If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality.
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?
There is something to be said for the practical value of keeping those closest to you happy, but even without that, adultery carries risks to one’s personal reputation, health, and future circumstances which could easily translate to a burden to the group. There’s nothing inherently harmful about taking multiple partners, but doing so when it constitutes a breach of contract does carry social consequences.
Yes, that’s the catch. Morality isn’t binding for people who are truly above social consequences. But how many people like that do you know? Even dictators can face consequences if their opposition is strong enough. It can often be shown that anyone who doubts the value of the success of the group without also devaluing one’s own success is wrong.
Additionally, even in hypothetical cases in which a person is completely immune to the social consequences of his actions, he must still contend with the personal, emotional consequences of violating a strong moral instinct (as seen in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment).
To the hypothetical person who is totally immune to consequences of any kind, I don’t see any justification for morality, theistic or otherwise, being compelling.
There is something to be said for the practical value of keeping those closest to you happy, but even without that, adultery carries risks to one’s personal reputation, health, and future circumstances which could easily translate to a burden to the group. There’s nothing inherently harmful about taking multiple partners, but doing so when it constitutes a breach of contract does carry social consequences.
That said, jealousy, polyamory and monogamy each have their own evolutionary explanations. It may be that our moral disgust against adultery is purely cultural.
Yes, that’s the catch. Morality isn’t binding for people who are truly above social consequences. But how many people like that do you know? Even dictators can face consequences if their opposition is strong enough. It can often be shown that anyone who doubts the value of the success of the group without also devaluing one’s own success is wrong.
Additionally, even in hypothetical cases in which a person is completely immune to the social consequences of his actions, he must still contend with the personal, emotional consequences of violating a strong moral instinct (as seen in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment).
To the hypothetical person who is totally immune to consequences of any kind, I don’t see any justification for morality, theistic or otherwise, being compelling.
There are negative social consequences to adultery related to group success, but I was saying that these consequences on your model do not seem to account for the deep sense of betrayal and sorrow felt by the spouse. In practice it's hard to square that discrepancy. Suppose, for example, that the adulterer makes recompense for the breach of contract, etc. It is unlikely that the offended party would find that finite (?) recompense satisfactory. If we turn to human experience there seems to be something more at play here.
I don't see it as an all or nothing affair... The person who approaches morality as a hypothetical will be significantly different from the person who approaches it categorically even if they aren't unequivocally above social consequences. Are you familiar with Plato's tale of the Ring of Gyges? Those who hold to a hypothetical morality approach it as an economical affair. On your model morality is a means to group success, which is a means to individual success. Thus there is already subordination of the group to the individual, and this naturally leads to a weakening of morality. I suppose a more modern example is Quicksilver from X-Men. He is able to steal without getting caught, and the society is so vast that his predilection for individual interest doesn't undermine it.
It seems that our society's moral compass surpasses rational self-interest. Whether that is due to Christian influence, I do not know, but the 'evolutionary' explanation must needs bridge a gap. Perhaps it would say that the categorical phenomenology of morality is due to an inference so ingrained that it has mistakenly become a basic premise of its own. In any case, something like that seems to be necessary to square the two sides of the equation.
sacrificial love, something only humans have (and parental figures), is not seen in animal instinct. (like I said accept for parents), but no where will you see a wolf in a pack for example bring food back to other pack animals before eating itself, and therefore sacrificing it's own calories for the sake of the greater good. But in humans you see self sacrificial love all the time. That is because God is the source of morality and human evolution cannot and will not evolve true love because it is not a real function on a macro level. (gaara you won't reply to my posts anymore and that's fine, but I never said I won't correct your errors in the open forum)
Is this really a moral problem, though? I don’t think anyone would claim that the psychology of intimate relationships - including territorial mating boundaries - can be reduced to moral intuitions or philosophy. We respect those boundaries for a mix of practical, moral, and emotive reasons. I suspect the same can be said for any number of decisions.There are negative social consequences to adultery related to group success, but I was saying that these consequences on your model do not seem to account for the deep sense of betrayal and sorrow felt by the spouse. In practice it's hard to square that discrepancy. Suppose, for example, that the adulterer makes recompense for the breach of contract, etc. It is unlikely that the offended party would find that finite (?) recompense satisfactory. If we turn to human experience there seems to be something more at play here.
You are free to display your ignorance wherever you like. You may never realize it, but your arguments are so absurd and sloppy they really don’t even need to be addressed. Anyone who would appreciate a response from me has already formulated a similar response in their head and they’d just be following along for the spectacle, and I’m not here to be a showman. I’m here to exchange ideas earnestly, and you have shown yourself time and time again not to be interested in that. If that changes, I’ll respond to you again, but until then I’m not getting into things with you.sacrificial love, something only humans have (and parental figures), is not seen in animal instinct. (like I said accept for parents), but no where will you see a wolf in a pack for example bring food back to other pack animals before eating itself, and therefore sacrificing it's own calories for the sake of the greater good. But in humans you see self sacrificial love all the time. That is because God is the source of morality and human evolution cannot and will not evolve true love because it is not a real function on a macro level. (gaara you won't reply to my posts anymore and that's fine, but I never said I won't correct your errors in the open forum)
Is this really a moral problem, though? I don’t think anyone would claim that the psychology of intimate relationships - including territorial mating boundaries - can be reduced to moral intuitions or philosophy. We respect those boundaries for a mix of practical, moral, and emotive reasons. I suspect the same can be said for any number of decisions.
I have another very important question to ask of everyone.
I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.
If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. 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?
sacrificial love, something only humans have (and parental figures), is not seen in animal instinct. (like I said accept for parents), but no where will you see a wolf in a pack for example bring food back to other pack animals before eating itself, and therefore sacrificing it's own calories for the sake of the greater good.
But in humans you see self sacrificial love all the time. That is because God is the source of morality and human evolution cannot and will not evolve true love because it is not a real function on a macro level.
I don’t think it’s either just moral or just practical. If it’s mostly one thing, it’s mostly a personal betrayal that causes severe emotional harm and damages the relationship often beyond repair. Aside from natural inclinations, there are both practical and principled reasons not to want to do that to someone, and to be indignant when it is done to you.Yes, I think it is a moral problem, for the heart of the matter is an affront to one's moral beliefs, not a practical matter.
Altruistic behaviour in animals is quite well documented.
You are free to display your ignorance wherever you like. You may never realize it, but your arguments are so absurd and sloppy they really don’t even need to be addressed. Anyone who would appreciate a response from me has already formulated a similar response in their head and they’d just be following along for the spectacle, and I’m not here to be a showman. I’m here to exchange ideas earnestly, and you have shown yourself time and time again not to be interested in that. If that changes, I’ll respond to you again, but until then I’m not getting into things with you.
When a wolf hunts in a pack, why would it need to bring food back to the pack when the pack is with him during the hunt?
But what is considered love and moral does evolve. Standards are different today than they were hundreds of years ago, and will be different hundreds of years from now. Doesn't that suggest the ever changing humans are the source of morality?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?