thehomer:

Humans have been known to kill others for mates.

And is this wrong, or morally reprehensible?

Deep Sight:
The Extra Terrestrial Intelligence Example.

You are an Extra Terrestrial Being. You are flying about the universe researching planets and creatures and ecosystems. You Come across the Earth.

On the Earth, you find and study many animals. Man is one of such animals, the most intelligent that you find.

You see that ALL the animals engage in some form of predatory territorial behavior or the other, for their survival and desires.

You see that man, being the most intelligent, also engages in same: i.e: scavenging, murdering, for resources and territory.

You conclude that all other animals on the Earth you have found can do this and it is not wrong for them to do this for their survival but it is wrong for the smartest animal amongst them to do same in smarter ways.

If thehomer can really pay attention, he'll see that this illustration exposes the fatal flaw in his arguments. There is really no reason why the alien should decide to hold humans to a different moral standard apart from the other animals.

Mr anony:
If thehomer can really pay attention, he'll see that this illustration exposes the fatal flaw in his arguments. There is really no reason why the alien should decide to hold humans to a different moral standard apart from the other animals.

Im no go gree.

thehomer:

Humans have been known to kill others for mates.

Going further. As an extra terrestrial researcher you come upon the earth and its basket of living creatures. You observe that humans kill one another for mates, resources, land, wealth, survival and other desires. You observe that ALL creatures on same planet do this. Why on earth (no pun intended) would you say that the human is doing something wrong, unnatural or perverse?

Just why?

And please, no escapist answers, such as asking me to define the nature and morality of you, the extra terrestrial being. I easily expect such a response from you. Answer frontally, directly, honestly, and without any attempt at escapist games.

Deep Sight:

Im no go gree.

Lol, his tatics usually ends up in last man standing wins no matter how absurd and contradictory the position is. He'll probably try to drag this thread on until someone gets tired of dancing with him.

Ironically, the atheists on this forum are some of the most fanatical people I've come across in my life.

Mr anony:
Perhaps you missed the point of my question. What do you mean when you say that a mind is complex? To use your example, how is a mind that can think about blackholes more complex than one that cannot?

I said we're capable of having complex thoughts.

Mr anony:
Man has chosen to do evil and hence made himself imperfect.

But then, something perfect made by a perfect being shouldn't be able to become imperfect otherwise we can expect Heaven to go the same way.

Mr anony:
The question really doesn't bug me. Asking you a question in reply is just my way of getting you to really examine your question. Well since you've pushed on and on, let me answer you in the way you want to be answered.

God's moral purpose for man is that man acts in a way that is objectively morally right. Satisfied?

Finally. A response. Now if that were God's purpose, why would he give immoral commands like commanding a genocide?

Mr anony:
Hmm,
If I get you correctly, you are saying that because an animal lacks the ability to think about it's actions (very debatable but I'll agree for now), It cannot be held morally responsible for them. Would the following not apply to an animal's lack of mathematical or rational/logical ability as grounds upon which we can say it isn't as intelligent as man and hence we ought not to have the same expectations for it?

Now let us inspect your comment shall we?

To introspect and decide for or against an action in this context is to morally evaluate the action. This presupposes that there is an objective moral standard against which the action is evaluated as right or wrong and then consequently acted upon accordingly. I hope you do realize that this is much the same way a person will sit and ponder over a logical problem or a mathematical problem and then proceed to act according to it.

Once again, by trying to run away from it, you have run right back to the reality that morality is objective and not only that, a man who goes against objective moral principles does not merely have a different opinion rather he has a wrong one.

Now we have agreed that people can be objectively morally wrong. The next question that follows is why are our moral principles the way they are? Why do our moral principles compel us to live by them. Why is it that moral principles are not merely as they are but point to us as we ought to be? Why is our existence subject to a certain moral reality? When you begin to truly and seriously ponder this, you'll be well on your way to discovering your creator.

You're just expatiating on my point without actually saying the role your God has to play. Remember the sorts of instructions your God has given in the past. Were those instructions morally right or wrong? Was commanding a genocide morally right or wrong?

Deep Sight:

And is this wrong, or morally reprehensible?

Yes.

Mr anony:
If thehomer can really pay attention, he'll see that this illustration exposes the fatal flaw in his arguments. There is really no reason why the alien should decide to hold humans to a different moral standard apart from the other animals.

Actually, that is the argument that totally destroys your claim about God having anything to do with morality not to talk about objectivity.

Deep Sight:

Going further. As an extra terrestrial researcher you come upon the earth and its basket of living creatures. You observe that humans kill one another for mates, resources, land, wealth, survival and other desires. You observe that ALL creatures on same planet do this. Why on earth (no pun intended) would you say that the human is doing something wrong, unnatural or perverse?

Just why?

And please, no escapist answers, such as asking me to define the nature and morality of you, the extra terrestrial being. I easily expect such a response from you. Answer frontally, directly, honestly, and without any attempt at escapist games.

What sort of information does this researcher have? If it has knowledge about social animals, intelligence, culture and other such characteristics, it would be able to understand why it can be said that for a human, those acts would be wrong. You're just ignoring what I've already said.

Mr anony:
Lol, his tatics usually ends up in last man standing wins no matter how absurd and contradictory the position is. He'll probably try to drag this thread on until someone gets tired of dancing with him.

Ironically, the atheists on this forum are some of the most fanatical people I've come across in my life.

This is just your transference in action. You're used just mumbling about the Bible and having what you say accepted. Once a little challenge pops up, you start complaining about the challenge.

thehomer:
I said we're capable of having complex thoughts.

Avoiding my question again are we?

But then, something perfect made by a perfect being shouldn't be able to become imperfect otherwise we can expect Heaven to go the same way.

Man has freedom to choose his actions that plays a big part. A perfectly straight line that has choices can choose to become crooked.

Finally. A response. Now if that were God's purpose, why would he give immoral commands like commanding a genocide?

Upon what basis do you judge any of his commands immoral?

You're just expatiating on my point without actually saying the role your God has to play. Remember the sorts of instructions your God has given in the past. Were those instructions morally right or wrong? Was commanding a genocide morally right or wrong?

The question you must first answer is upon what basis you consider them wrong?

thehomer:

Actually, that is the argument that totally destroys your claim about God having anything to do with morality not to talk about objectivity.

Actually it doesn't because if God did create humans and animals, He can very easily have different purposes and demands for them.

For you it becomes a problem because you claim that there objective moral principles are not based on any designer, you also claim that humans are animals, you also claim that we should only accept what we can observe and test.

You must now explain why different animals are observed engaging in the same activities and yet one is specially picked out as moral while the others are considered amoral.

thehomer:

This is just your transference in action. You're used just mumbling about the Bible and having what you say accepted. Once a little challenge pops up, you start complaining about the challenge.

Yawn. I have only described your methods. Funny enough, I like to engage with you, I only usually stop when I see that we are now moving round in circles and getting nowhere. It makes no sense beating dead horses you know. I learnt that lesson from arguing with guys like logicboy

thehomer:

What sort of information does this researcher have? If it has knowledge about social animals, intelligence, culture and other such characteristics, it would be able to understand why it can be said that for a human, those acts would be wrong. You're just ignoring what I've already said.

Please tell me how as an alien researcher, you would go about knowing this solely from empirical observation and without the ability to read the minds and intents of your subject animals.

thehomer:

Exactly? Really? Do you have any reports on humans killing and eating their spouses after intercourse?

[url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa]This comes close[/url]. [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism]An example of this behaviour in spiders[/url]. This comes very close

Anony, with regards to this, what exactly do you want addressed?

Mr anony:
Here's an example for you: A person ought to keep his promises

Really? Supposing I promised a genocide? Or to roast you for eternity whatever reason?

Mr anony:
1. It is truly evil to rape women for fun.
2. It is truly evil to torture babies for fun.
3. It is truly good to forgive offenses.
4. It is truly good to save a child from drowning

1, 2 & 4, not if you have a less than positive view of life.

3. Haha, not at all. A simple example, repeat, unrepentant influential offenders. Or to defend your own, like the op implies.

Mr anony:
An action cannot be called a moral action if it isn't done for a reason.

Stop right there.

What determines your reason, what determines your objectives?

Mr anony:
Avoiding my question again are we?

You were asking a question based on something I didn't say.

Mr anony:
Man has freedom to choose his actions that plays a big part. A perfectly straight line that has choices can choose to become crooked.

If man were perfect, won't his choices have been perfect?

Mr anony:
Upon what basis do you judge any of his commands immoral?

Let's take his commands one at a time. I'm judging this command immoral because it commanded the killing of children for land.

Mr anony:
The question you must first answer is upon what basis you consider them wrong?

Here, I'm asking you if commanding a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land is right or wrong. Why don't you answer that?

Mr anony:
Actually it doesn't because if God did create humans and animals, He can very easily have different purposes and demands for them.

If his purpose for them was that they should act morally, then he cannot be giving them immoral commands.

Mr anony:
For you it becomes a problem because you claim that there objective moral principles are not based on any designer, you also claim that humans are animals, you also claim that we should only accept what we can observe and test.

Yes objective moral principles don't need a designer since the presence of the designer doesn't make them objective, it just makes it subjective from the point of the designer. Yes humans are animals do you disagree with that fact? If you do, then you're saying humans are not animals. If they aren't, then I'd like to know where they belong in biological taxonomy. Where did I make the third claim you've attributed to me?

Mr anony:
You must now explain why different animals are observed engaging in the same activities and yet one is specially picked out as moral while the others are considered amoral.

I've answered this several times already. I think you should now explain how God's views are can be considered objective but not this alien's views.

Mr anony:
Yawn. I have only described your methods. Funny enough, I like to engage with you, I only usually stop when I see that we are now moving round in circles and getting nowhere. It makes no sense beating dead horses you know. I learnt that lesson from arguing with guys like logicboy

No you didn't. You're yet to actually show me contradicting myself. It looks like you've forgotten how long you dragged previous threads we engaged in simply because you refused to answer basic questions.

Mr anony:
Please tell me how as an alien researcher, you would go about knowing this solely from empirical observation and without the ability to read the minds and intents of your subject animals.

I don't care about how it discovers that knowledge, I said if it had that knowledge, then it would be able to understand that for a human, certain actions would be wrong. You're about to hitch your argument to something irrelevant.

Uyi Iredia:

[url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa]This comes close[/url]. [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism]An example of this behaviour in spiders[/url]. This comes very close

And you proceed to miss my points entirely. Do you know what my position on this is? Do you know what deep sight's position is?

Mr anony's arguments for objective based morality amazes me more and more. He claims there is objective morality, he claims such objective morality is impossible without God. No God No morality, yet morality is objective.

thehomer:

I don't care about how it discovers that knowledge, I said if it had that knowledge, then it would be able to understand that for a human, certain actions would be wrong. You're about to hitch your argument to something irrelevant.

And yet curiously without being in the heads of other predatory territorial animals, you are able to pronounce conclusively that they do not have the properties to make moral choice or judgments, notwithstanding that you see them carrying out the same acts of predatory aggression that humans have always carried out, and protecting their families as humans do.

You sir, have been a wild maze of preposterous contradictions in this thread.

Most cardinally, you have failed to show, and of course you cannot show just why greater intelligence should stop a predatory territorial animal from being predatory and territorial in greater and better ways.

Kay 17: Mr anony's arguments for objective based morality amazes me more and more. He claims there is objective morality, he claims such objective morality is impossible without God. No God No morality, yet morality is objective.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

He actually agrees with me that good is dependent on human well-being. But for some reason, we still need some God to tell us what is beneficial to humans given what we've managed to find out about ourselves.

A philosopher said that the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity can be confusing to people. It looks like Mr anony has been confused by these ideas.

Deep Sight:

And yet curiously without being in the heads of other predatory territorial animals, you are able to pronounce conclusively that they do not have the properties to make moral choice or judgments, notwithstanding that you see them carrying out the same acts of predatory aggression that humans have always carried out, and protecting their families as humans do.

Without being in the heads of children, we're able to pronounce conclusively that they do not have the properties to make moral judgements. Have you ever wondered why?

Deep Sight:
You sir, have been a wild maze of preposterous contradictions in this thread.

But you have just been a wild maze of astounding confusion in this thread.

Deep Sight:
Most cardinally, you have failed to show, and of course you cannot show just why greater intelligence should stop a predatory territorial animal from being predatory and territorial in greater and better ways.

You do realize that the form of expression of territorial and behaviour has taken a different turn.

I've answered so many of your questions that I think it is time for you to try some of mine.

Is it right to command a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land? If yes, why? If no, why not?

thehomer:

Without being in the heads of children, we're able to pronounce conclusively that they do not have the properties to make moral judgements. Have you ever wondered why?

Children are the same creatures that we are: being of our species and as such we can communicate with them. A lion has never explained to you why he does what he does and just how it feels, he?

But you have just been a wild maze of astounding confusion in this thread.

It would seem so from your very contradictory point of view.

You do realize that the form of expression of territorial and behaviour has taken a different turn.

And morality with it?

With this you have hammered yourself.

If indeed these "forms of expression" take "different turns" then you have no place condemning the genocides of the bible: these would simply be predatory territorial animals doing what comes naturally to them, at a time in history when further common grounds of morality had yet to evolve.

I've answered so many of your questions that I think it is time for you to try some of mine.

It is false to say that you have answered any of my questions. You have answered almost none.

Is it right to command a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Going by your definition of man as merely a smarter animal, it is very very right and natural and proper to be engaged in genocides against groups whose resources you seek to control.

Going by my definition of man as a spirit being, it is very wrong and immoral.

And as for the issuer of the command, you do not know what his moral compass is, do you - just as animals do not know ours, do they?

Deep Sight:

Children are the same creatures that we are: being of our species and as such we can communicate with them. A lion has never explained to you why he does what he does and just how it feels, he?

So a 6 month old child has communicated to you why it peed in your face while you were trying to help?

Deep Sight:
It would seem so from your very contradictory point of view.

Then show me the contradiction.

Deep Sight:
And morality with it?

With this you have hammered yourself.

If indeed these "forms of expression" take "different turns" then you have no place condemning the genocides of the bible: these would simply be predatory territorial animals doing what comes naturally to them, at a time in history when further common grounds of morality had yet to evolve.

Is that your main confusion? My response is that it was still immoral and generally Christians would agree but they're often blinded with their God glasses. Those people just didn't know it. Now the problem Christians face is that their God should have known and have given better commands.

Deep Sight:
It is false to say that you have answered any of my questions. You have answered almost none.



Going by your definition of man as merely a smarter animal, it is very very right and natural and proper to be engaged in genocides against groups whose resources you seek to control.

And this is just your own misunderstanding. In fact, what you're doing above is an appeal to nature which is fallacious. The fact that those actions are natural doesn't make them moral.

Deep Sight:
Going by my definition of man as a spirit being, it is very wrong and immoral.

Now why is it very wrong and immoral?

Deep Sight:
And as for the issuer of the command, you do not know what his moral compass is, do you - just as animals do not know ours, do they?

Whatever his moral compass is, it isn't good for humans at the very least. And that is the other arm of my argument against religious folks reading this.

thehomer:

So a 6 month old child has communicated to you why it peed in your face while you were trying to help?

Please do not venture into absurdity if you intend to keep the conversation a serious one. Being humans ourselves we know the perceptions, desires and needs of humans. You are not a Lion and thus do not necessarily know what a lion's notions are. You may observe him, but you are not inside his mind.

I brought this up because you brought up an answer saying that if an alien knew what was within the minds of humans, he would know that for humans, this or that is wrong. This is the same way that if humans knew what was in the mind of Lions, we would know that for lions, this or that is wrong - and that they therefore have their own moral compass.

Please let us not be distracted by this, it is a side-point anyway.

Is that your main confusion? My response is that it was still immoral and generally Christians would agree but they're often blinded with their God glasses. Those people just didn't know it. Now the problem Christians face is that their God should have known and have given better commands.

Why should he have known? It is in order surely, for him to give them commands suited to their stage of evolution, no? Would you hold homo erectus to the same moral standards of homo sapiens? If you insist that morality evolves with creatures, and man evolved from lower creatures, then it would make perfect sense to expect that there would be an appropriate state of nature he dwells in at every stage of his evolution. It would thus make sense to say that ancient men were at that stage of their evolution and as such everything they did was only natural. In this context it cannot be deemed wrong. Furthermore, their God would know that it was appropriate for them at that stage.

This is the right and proper reasoning and logic that should follow from your contentions.

And this is just your own misunderstanding. In fact, what you're doing above is an appeal to nature which is fallacious. The fact that those actions are natural doesn't make them moral.

A strict materialist CANNOT say this! For a strict materialist, everything springs from nature and the physical environment! As such, it should be perfectly sensible to look to nature and appeal to nature in all things, for the strict materialist.

If all things spring from nature, and you say that a given thing is perfectly natural, you would be contradicting yourself to say that such a thing is wrong or evil.

Now why is it very wrong and immoral?

Because I see man as a spiritual being living in a spiritual environment with attendant spiritual laws such as Karma. However I will not go into this with you as you do not believe any of that. As such, all I can do is show you that your own perspective on the matter is contradictory.

Whatever his moral compass is, it isn't good for humans at the very least. And that is the other arm of my argument against religious folks reading this.

You cannot tell that it is not good for humans: a simple argument for example may be made that wars and such other fatal competitions must have been necessary to hone the skills of early men into being fit, ruthless and brutal enough to rule the earth as against its many other living dangers and predators. It would fit perfectly into the development of man as seen from a historical perspective and therefore would not be wrong.

Just as surely as the Greeks would never have had the rigor and discipline to defeat Persia if they had not fought a lot among themselves already and mastered a military culture therefore.

Deep Sight:

Please do not venture into absurdity if you intend to keep the conversation a serious one. Being humans ourselves we know the perceptions, desires and needs of humans. You are not a Lion and thus do not necessarily know what a lion's notions are. You may observe him, but you are not inside his mind.

You're there already. Despite the fact that you're human, you don't assign moral responsibility to children who are also human but you start to assign one to them as they grow older. What I've been pointing out to you is that lions don't have notions of morality.

Deep Sight:
I brought this up because you brought up an answer saying that if an alien knew what was within the minds of humans, he would know that for humans, this or that is wrong. This is the same way that if humans knew what was in the mind of Lions, we would know that for lions, this or that is wrong - and that they therefore have their own moral compass.

Please let us not be distracted by this, it is a side-point anyway.

Not if it knew what was within the minds of humans, but if it had certain information about humans in contrast to having that information about other animals.

Deep Sight:
Why should he have known? It is in order surely, for him to give them commands suited to their stage of evolution, no? Would you hold homo erectus to the same moral standards of homo sapiens? If you insist that morality evolves with creatures, and man evolved from lower creatures, then it would make perfect sense to expect that there would be an appropriate state of nature he dwells in at every stage of his evolution. It would thus make sense to say that ancient men were at that stage of their evolution and as such everything they did was only natural. In this context it cannot be deemed wrong. Furthermore, their God would know that it was appropriate for them at that stage.

This is the right and proper reasoning and logic that should follow from your contentions.

He should have known because he is a good and omniscient being who cares about humans. Just so you know, the humans who wrote the Bible were the same species as you.

Deep Sight:
A strict materialist CANNOT say this! For a strict materialist, everything springs from nature and the physical environment! As such, it should be perfectly sensible to look to nature and appeal to nature in all things, for the strict materialist.

If all things spring from nature, and you say that a given thing is perfectly natural, you would be contradicting yourself to say that such a thing is wrong or evil.

And this is why what you're saying is a fallacy. For some reason, you seem to thin that if you cannot see it as a fallacy, others shouldn't be able to see it as such.

Deep Sight:
Because I see man as a spiritual being living in a spiritual environment with attendant spiritual laws such as Karma. However I will not go into this with you as you do not believe any of that. As such, all I can do is show you that your own perspective on the matter is contradictory.

Actually, you have to go into it to fully explain your point of view because it is looking pretty incoherent. Whether or not I believe it shouldn't stop you from showing if what you're saying is coherent. If the best you can do is just sticking to criticizing what I'm saying based on your fallacious notions, then you have to realize that you've not made your argument for your point of view.

Besides, karma is the magical idea that people get what they deserve not that people committing evil acts is wrong. Secondly, you'll have to say what you think spirituality is. Is it something that humans have like sight? Or is it something that is out there in the environment like a molecule?

Deep Sight:
You cannot tell that it is not good for humans: a simple argument for example may be made that wars and such other fatal competitions must have been necessary to hone the skills of early men into being fit, ruthless and brutal enough to rule the earth as against its many other living dangers and predators. It would fit perfectly into the development of man as seen from a historical perspective and therefore would not be wrong.

Actually, I can tell that it is not good for humans and you can too. Unless you think that commanding a certain man to go out and kill 20 children is somehow good for those children, then frankly you don't know what you're talking about and I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Deep Sight:
Just as surely as the Greeks would never have had the rigor and discipline to defeat Persia if they had not fought a lot among themselves already and mastered a military culture therefore.

The Greeks weren't being lead by an omniscient deity were they?

^^^ Stop making hopeless one-liners that are utterly illogical, side-stepping the points made: a strict materialist can never be seen to argue that something is a fallacy from nature. That is an inescapable contradiction. Period.