Deep Sight:
^^^ 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.

This is quite illogical and laughable. You're asking me to accept a logical fallacy simply because you think I should?

Is this your attempt at escaping the fact that karma doesn't help you?

Mr anony: I've read the first 2 pages of that thread; it gave me a few chuckles. In a weird way, the thread actually made me like AIO a bit more.

If you ask me, statements like "We cannot know anything" are the easiest kind of statements to refute because all you have to do is ask "How do you know that to be true?" and the statement immediately crumbles. ditto those that say morality is subjective. Nobody truly believes that morality is subjective. All you have to do is insult them or lie against them and immediately, they start telling you why your actions are wrong. They conveniently forget at that moment that you might just be observing your own private moral principles.

Number of points. 1) I never said that 'we cannot know anything'. For instance I said that I can be sure that 'I' exist. How and where, I may not know, but I know that I exist.

2) No statement crumbles with your approach above. Rather you are caught in a paradox. It is Paradox that certain people find so unpalatable. Yet we find Paradox in every system of thought. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then don't think too deeply about life.
What you consider a crumbling argument is what I would term a mystery. I can't remember where exactly but I have defined my used of 'mystery' on nairaland before as 'Not a catch all term for the as yet unknown, but rather a term for the Unknowable'.

Many say something is a mystery but they hope that with time the mystery will clear up and they'll know.

I say there are somethings that are beyond the categories of knowledge. When we approach these things we are met with paradox. That shows that you are at the limits of knowledge/beliefs/epistemological claims.

3) I would not just say that Morality was subjective. I would say that I have a bias for my morality. This bias instinctively makes me fight to defend my biased morals. It's a common method when say a theist and an atheist from the same country are arguing over morality, that an example is advanced, say cannibalism. 'Is cannibalism moral'? Of course the other party would never say cannibalism was moral because he comes from the same cultural milieu as the person asking the question and so has the same bias to hate cannibalism.
No, such an approach is just plain dumb. The perfect response to that question would be, 'I, too, find cannibalism objectionable because I've been raised to do so and I will go to the end of the world to have it stamped out, however to demonstrate that it is an objective moral, my friend, you would have to travel to Papua New Guinea and convince some aborigines with logic and arguments that it is morally wrong. If you can do that then I'll start to concede that it might be universal.'

Mr anony:
I have not said that you contradicted yourself at all. I am only wondering why you would bother going through a long argument on morality if in the end you'll say that we don't and cannot know anything.

This part is quite important and I will come back to it.

thehomer:

This is quite illogical and laughable. You're asking me to accept a logical fallacy simply because you think I should?

Is this your attempt at escaping the fact that karma doesn't help you?

Logical fallacy? Are you kidding me? This can never be a logical fallacy for a strict materialist who beleives that everything that exists is physical and all things derive from nature. He has nowhere else to derive his morality from bur from said nature. So the strict materialist cannot do a double-flip on this. I will not let you play word games on this one: this point is cast in iron and adamantine.

And I did not discuss anything to do with Karma with you by the way. You asked a question, I gave my reason, and specifically said I was aware it means nothing to you.

Pastor AIO:

Number of points. 1) I never said that 'we cannot know anything'. For instance I said that I can be sure that 'I' exist. How and where, I may not know, but I know that I exist.

2) No statement crumbles with your approach above. Rather you are caught in a paradox. It is Paradox that certain people find so unpalatable. Yet we find Paradox in every system of thought. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then don't think too deeply about life.
What you consider a crumbling argument is what I would term a mystery. I can't remember where exactly but I have defined my used of 'mystery' on nairaland before as 'Not a catch all term for the as yet unknown, but rather a term for the Unknowable'.

Many say something is a mystery but they hope that with time the mystery will clear up and they'll know.

I say there are somethings that are beyond the categories of knowledge. When we approach these things we are met with paradox. That shows that you are at the limits of knowledge/beliefs/epistemological claims.

3) I would not just say that Morality was subjective. I would say that I have a bias for my morality. This bias instinctively makes me fight to defend my biased morals. It's a common method when say a theist and an atheist from the same country are arguing over morality, that an example is advanced, say cannibalism. 'Is cannibalism moral'? Of course the other party would never say cannibalism was moral because he comes from the same cultural milieu as the person asking the question and so has the same bias to hate cannibalism.
No, such an approach is just plain dumb. The perfect response to that question would be, 'I, too, find cannibalism objectionable because I've been raised to do so and I will go to the end of the world to have it stamped out, however to demonstrate that it is an objective moral, my friend, you would have to travel to Papua New Guinea and convince some aborigines with logic and arguments that it is morally wrong. If you can do that then I'll start to concede that it might be universal.'

Lol.

Deep Sight:
Now, Pastor, Anony -

I take this quote from one of Pastor's comments in that thread 4 years ago -



Let me make my self perfectly clear: that post (you can read it in the link above) was utterly masterful and brilliant. It was in many ways so so true. However, take a look at the sentence I have extracted above. With that sentence alone, Pastor renders it impossible for anybody to make a moral judgment on anything or any situation whatsoever.

Absolutely and permanently impossible.

He also renders it permanently and absolutely impossible to know anything whatsoever (Descartes) even and including knowing anything about your own life, and the people and situations you interact with. For this reason, it is purposeless debating anything with Pastor because the eternal escapist response is that nobody can know anything. All discussions are thus futile with him, and such discussions may even be useless as we do not know that we are even having a discussion: it may well just be our imagination playing with itself.

There you go: Its out rightly nihilistic.

You do me a grave injustice, Mr Deepsight. For a start I never said it was impossible for anyone to make a moral judgement. I said that the human faculties cannot do so, for the reasons that I set out above, however there are other faculties that we have access to that inform us to do THE RIGHT THING.

2)Neither I, nor Descartes, said it was impossible 'to know anything whatsoever'. Descartes said it was possible to know that 'I' exists.

3) It is not purposeless discussing anything with me. It is just purposeless discussing the wrong things with me, the pointless things, the things lacking pertinence.

Experience does not lack pertinence and can be discussed. I mean the whole extent of human Experience. Whether real or delusory there is no denying an experience and in life we all seek pleasant experiences and abhor bad ones. Even the delusions. Before going to sleep you might drink Camomile tea because it gives you pleasant dreams. Other food or drink, or drugs might give you horrid dreams.
We go to the movies in search of pleasant experiences even though we know that the story on the screen is not real. We still immerse ourselves in it and fully enjoy the experience.

So what is worth discussing with me is not 'objective reality' but rather experience.

@ Pastor, here are your words -

That's the thing. Without knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation it is impossible to make a moral judgement on anything.

https://www.nairaland.com/335826/pastor-aio-come-teach-us#4723301

It is not possible for anyone to ever have knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation, end of.

Not with the carnal mind, and not even with the spiritual mind - as I note you made that distinction.

Simple as that, ol pal.

PS: Note that I did not say that you said - I said that you "rendered it impossible to make a moral judgment on anything." With this sort of world view, you must note that it becomes irrational and unnaceptable for even courts to exist: as each man has his own "moral bias" and no one else on this planet may ever have "knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation".

In short, that talk is completely irrelevant to any discussion about group morality and this is why I say it is unnecessary and useless taking up the subject with you.

Deep Sight: @ Pastor, here are your words -



It is not possible for anyone to ever have knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation, end of.

Not with the carnal mind, and not even with the spiritual mind -

How are you so certain of the part that I put in bold?

Pastor AIO:

How are you so certain of the part that I put in bold?

Because not even the spiritual mind has a panoramic view of all eternity, all permutations and all results and consequences. Only God does.

Pastor AIO:

How are you so certain of the part that I put in bold?

I should briefly add the following -

1. The promptings and intuitions of the spirit, while well appointed, do not constitute "full knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation", do they?

2. The promptings of the Spirit of individual persons in individual situations cannot be used to develop a moral code for a society. . . unless, as you know to be unlikely, they all receive the same spiritual prompting on every matter every time. Both impossible and absurd. Someone may have had a spiritual prompting to murder Adolf Hitler when he was a baby, for example. How would that rate on the moral compass of society if they actually did it?

3. The promptings of each spirit, even if lucid and clear, will reach towards their individual spiritual leanings. As such, as a rough example, where a man commits a grievous act, the promptings of the spirits of the victims may be vastly different from the promptings of the spirit of his family and those who may want to protect him.

4. As you may know, spiritual promptings are often unclear and not easily deciphered into the temporal mind. One meaning could be confused for another.

Think carefully on each of these, and perhaps you will see why this has little place in a discussion on the basis of morality. In the example you gave in the other thread about the man who gives his friend money, his action is probably kind, but neither moral nor immoral based on the outcome of the friend being mugged.

Pastor AIO:


Experience does not lack pertinence and can be discussed. I mean the whole extent of human Experience. Whether real or delusory there is no denying an experience and in life we all seek pleasant experiences and abhor bad ones. Even the delusions. Before going to sleep you might drink Camomile tea because it gives you pleasant dreams. Other food or drink, or drugs might give you horrid dreams.
We go to the movies in search of pleasant experiences even though we know that the story on the screen is not real. We still immerse ourselves in it and fully enjoy the experience.

The whole extent of human experience could simply be in my thoughts and imagination and as such I am free to do anything therein and no question of morality or immorality should come up within it - I should only be concerned with my comfort and pleasurable existence within my thoughts and imaginations. Such obviates any notion of morality and this is why anyone who would advance that notion should kindly also stay away from discussions about morality completely, as the notion would thereby be dead on arrival. It would not exist at all.

The notion can be advanced to substantiate (to yourself) your existence, but has no place in a discussion about group morality and ethics.

Deep Sight:

Logical fallacy? Are you kidding me? This can never be a logical fallacy for a strict materialist who beleives that everything that exists is physical and all things derive from nature. He has nowhere else to derive his morality from bur from said nature. So the strict materialist cannot do a double-flip on this. I will not let you play word games on this one: this point is cast in iron and adamantine.

Even if one indulged you, are you implying that consciousness, which comes with a heavy dose of emotion, emotions that are responsible for our goals, is not.... natural? Why? Because you say so?

Where did your magical spirit being get it's goals from?

wiegraf:

Even if one indulged you, are you implying that consciousness, which comes with a heavy dose of emotion, emotions that are responsible for our goals, is not.... natural? Why?

There is a thread Plaetton opened on which I will address that - that question derails from the discussion here.

Because you say so?

Where did your magical spirit being get it's goals from?

Now, what I say, and this derived from thehomer's position - what I say is that the strict materialist cannot be a strict materialist and at the same time reject physical nature as his reference point for morality. That is contradictory and absurd. No escape there. Absolutely none.

Deep Sight:

There is a thread Plaetton opened on which I will address that - that question derails from the discussion here.

I disagree as that is, more or else, the source of morality, therefore very relevant. You seem to be ignoring that.

Deep Sight:
Now, what I say, and this derived from thehomer's position - what I say is that the strict materialist cannot be a strict materialist and at the same time reject physical nature as his reference point for morality. That is contradictory and absurd. No escape there. Absolutely none.

And, as has been asked (or pointed out) time and again, how is this a dilemma? Are you saying that because someone's views are materialistic one cannot object to say cannibalism? We have shown you that that is false, yes?

wiegraf:

I disagree as that is, more or else, the source of morality, therefore very relevant. You seem to be ignoring that.

Your issues on consciousness will be better addressed on that thread. I am writing an epistle for it, and it would not be efficient to repeat myself.

But just as a little teaser, do your body parts form voltron or do they work for voltron?

And, as has been asked (or pointed out) time and again, how is this a dilemma? Are you saying that because someone's views are materialistic one cannot object to say cannibalism?

O dear, o dear. I am really surprised that you fellows do not see the dilemma of someone who says that only physical nature exists and yet seeks to locate his morality on something else?

We have shown you that that is false, yes?

Don't make me laugh, lol, none of you have shown a single thing whatsoever on this thread.

If physical nature is all that exists, it must perforce be the reference point for morality, simple. How anyone can ask for an explanation of that, just beats me.

It is like agreeing that every cake in the world is made of flour and yet insisting that you have a cake that's made of something else.

Thus, saying that everything that exists is physical nature, but then saying that you have something that is NOT physical nature!

How is this a logical fallacy, as thehomer lazily claims? Res ipsa loquitor! The thing speaks for itself!

That is the meaning of strict materialism. That everything is physical matter, and we and all living things are, and derive from the interplay of physical matter alone. In the first place one wonders why things that derive from mindless interactions of matter need to have any moral compunctions at all. In the second, and more relevant case, one wonders why the strict materialist would then seek to dissociate himself from the territorial and predatory inter working evident in ALL of nature?

In other words, he is trying to stand aside from and dissociate himself from something that he says is the only thing that exists and is ALL that exists!

Beat that man!

Its an absurd, absurd absurd stance.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that there is NOBODY on this planet that lives his life with this stance in mind. Nobody whatsoever. There are only baby atheists with poorly thought out views who claim that they are strict materialists. No human being can actually be one - for that would entail denying his very thoughts, which are not physical things. His very emotions, which are not physical things. His very ideas and conceptions, which are not physical things. His imaginations and fantasies, which aren't physical things.

Deep Sight:

Logical fallacy? Are you kidding me? This can never be a logical fallacy for a strict materialist who beleives that everything that exists is physical and all things derive from nature. He has nowhere else to derive his morality from bur from said nature. So the strict materialist cannot do a double-flip on this. I will not let you play word games on this one: this point is cast in iron and adamantine.

If something is a logical fallacy, then whether one is a materialist or anything else, it simply is a fallacy. You are just asserting that I must agree to commit this logical fallacy maybe because you'll look the other way but I don't work that way. I think you really need to take a look at the fallacy of making an appeal to nature when it comes to morality.

Deep Sight:
And I did not discuss anything to do with Karma with you by the way. You asked a question, I gave my reason, and specifically said I was aware it means nothing to you.

I demonstrated two things to you.

1, Your reason wasn't a reason at all and
2, you were misusing the idea of karma with regards to morality.

It appears that due to your discomfort in trying to defend your view, you're trying to simply ignore my requests for you to provide your explanations.

Deep Sight:

Your issues on consciousness will be better addressed on that thread. I am writing an epistle for it, and it would not be efficient to repeat myself.

But just as a little teaser, do your body parts form voltron or do they work for voltron?

Hmm. I wonder what answer you want to give to this.

Deep Sight:
O dear, o dear. I am really surprised that you fellows do not see the dilemma of someone who says that only physical nature exists and yet seeks to locate his morality on something else?

It now appears that you're getting confused of what my position as a materialist is.

Deep Sight:
Don't make me laugh, lol, none of you have shown a single thing whatsoever on this thread.

If physical nature is all that exists, it must perforce be the reference point for morality, simple. How anyone can ask for an explanation of that, just beats me.

Deep Sight has shown it all it seems. This looks like more of your confusion. Let me help you with a question.

Do you think materialists accept that consciousness, justice and judgement are available?

Deep Sight:
It is like agreeing that every cake in the world is made of flour and yet insisting that you have a cake that's made of something else.

Thus, saying that everything that exists is physical nature, but then saying that you have something that is NOT physical nature!

How is this a logical fallacy, as thehomer lazily claims? Res ipsa loquitor! The thing speaks for itself!

It is nothing like your poor analogies above. In fact, the analogies you've given above are more consonant with theists who believe in some God with a mind or a personal God.

The fact that e.g animals kill and eat their mates after copulating therefore someone who is a materialist should think that humans doing the same is just fine, commits the fallacious appeal to nature because there is no reason to think that just because something occurs in nature, therefore it is good.

Deep Sight:
That is the meaning of strict materialism. That everything is physical matter, and we and all living things are, and derive from the interplay of physical matter alone. In the first place one wonders why things that derive from mindless interactions of matter need to have any moral compunctions at all. In the second, and more relevant case, one wonders why the strict materialist would then seek to dissociate himself from the territorial and predatory inter working evident in ALL of nature?

Now you're wondering why humans have moral compunctions? I've still not seen you explain why humans cannot dissociate themselves from the rest of nature with respect to issues like morality. They've already done that with respect to issues like sex and reproduction, nutrition, motion, intelligence and many other features. Why not morality?

Deep Sight:
In other words, he is trying to stand aside from and dissociate himself from something that he says is the only thing that exists and is ALL that exists!

Beat that man!

Its an absurd, absurd absurd stance.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that there is NOBODY on this planet that lives his life with this stance in mind. Nobody whatsoever. There are only baby atheists with poorly thought out views who claim that they are strict materialists. No human being can actually be one - for that would entail denying his very thoughts, which are not physical things. His very emotions, which are not physical things. His very ideas and conceptions, which are not physical things. His imaginations and fantasies, which aren't physical things.

Ooh. Obviously we have adult theists with well thought out views who claim that karma and spirits are their guiding concepts in morality. But when they're probed, they start running and dodging.

You, my friend, are just confused and seem unable to make your way out of that confusion.

^^^ Obviously its too hard for you to take on the specific points made and deconstruct them. I will not respond to side jibes and non-starters. The points are there, if you are able, look them squarely in the eye and explain why they are wrong. Simple. All these one line escapist remarks that have nothing to do with how to bed a unicorn style chic are just boring.

It's amusing how someone confuses himself so deliberately in the hopes of spreading his confusion on everyone else.

@thehomer, why don't you explain what your own brand of materialism is so that we'll understand what it is you're trying to say? Because I'm curious to see how it allows you to be more than physical, ie, meta-physical.

thehomer:

If something is a logical fallacy, then whether one is a materialist or anything else, it simply is a fallacy. You are just asserting that I must agree to commit this logical fallacy maybe because you'll look the other way but I don't work that way. I think you really need to take a look at the fallacy of making an appeal to nature when it comes to morality.

And I have said that that fallacy does not apply to the view point of a strict materialist. It cannot, because a strict materialist by definition hold material nature to be all that exists. I dont know whether you dont know what a strict materialist is, or you are just looking the other way when cornered.

I demonstrated two things to you.

1, Your reason wasn't a reason at all and
2, you were misusing the idea of karma with regards to morality.

Son, you're really being lazy in this thread. I never even used the idea of Karma for any of my arguments in this thread. You asked my opinion on morality and in explaining it I also mentioned Karmaic laws, which work at the level of the spirit. I specifically recall saying I cannot discuss this with you since you reject the existence of the spirit. I however, can discuss nature and matter with you because we both accept the existence of nature and matter.

It appears that due to your discomfort in trying to defend your view, you're trying to simply ignore my requests for you to provide your explanations.

I have more than abundantly canvassed and expatiated on my view that the strict materialist cannot have a quarrel with that which is standard fare in material nature as it also demonstrably occurs to humans - who are part of material nature. Your views, on the other hand, have been wild contradictions of these basic facts.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Obviously its too hard for you to take on the specific points made and deconstruct them. I will not respond to side jibes and non-starters. The points are there, if you are able, look them squarely in the eye and explain why they are wrong. Simple. All these one line escapist remarks that have nothing to do with how to bed a unicorn style chic are just boring.

I've already done that. What specific point of yours do you think I didn't address?

Sure don't respond to the side jabs, only make them to please yourself.

When pithy responses knock you down, just claim they're boring. That appears to be your preferred tactic.

Ihedinobi: It's amusing how someone confuses himself so deliberately in the hopes of spreading his confusion on everyone else.

@thehomer, why don't you explain what your own brand of materialism is so that we'll understand what it is you're trying to say? Because I'm curious to see how it allows you to be more than physical, ie, meta-physical.

Honestly o. Such simple 1 + 1 logic appears too much for him!

We talk about strict materialism and he wishes the strict materialist to be able, without batting an eye lid, insist on his strict materialism and yet reach away from it to canvass his moral views. He doea not see the very elementary fact that this alone renders such a person NOT a strict materialist!

He says that the strict materialist can employ non materialist concepts. And yet is a strict materialist.

He says that the strict materialist is not bound by nature: and yet contends that nature is all that exists for the strict materialist.

He says that humans are animals but that it is wrong for humans to do what animals do.

According to him, humans are animals but will be evil if they do what animals do.

The only difference between humans and animals, for him, is intelligence, and he yet says it will be wrong and evil for the humans, who are animals, to use their greater intelligence to do what animals do.

He sees no other animal to restrain in this fashion - only humans.

thehomer is way too funny honestly.

Ihedinobi: It's amusing how someone confuses himself so deliberately in the hopes of spreading his confusion on everyone else.

@thehomer, why don't you explain what your own brand of materialism is so that we'll understand what it is you're trying to say? Because I'm curious to see how it allows you to be more than physical, ie, meta-physical.

To put it simply, it is that everything that exists is physical. Note that this doesn't mean that certain phenomena don't emerge out of the physical.

Now, what are you trying to say? I hope that you'll also be willing to let us examine your views.

Deep Sight:

And I have said that that fallacy does not apply to the view point of a strict materialist. It cannot, because a strict materialist by definition hold material nature to be all that exists. I dont know whether you dont know what a strict materialist is, or you are just looking the other way when cornered.

Fallacies apply to anyone trying to use reason. If the reasoning is erroneous, then there's some problem with it. Fallacies are generally the ways that reasoning have been known to go wrong.

Deep Sight:
Son, you're really being lazy in this thread. I never even used the idea of Karma for any of my arguments in this thread. You asked my opinion on morality and in explaining it I also mentioned Karmaic laws, which work at the level of the spirit. I specifically recall saying I cannot discuss this with you since you reject the existence of the spirit. I however, can discuss nature and matter with you because we both accept the existence of nature and matter.

Punk you're definitely being lazy on this thread. Even worse, you're denying your own words that are still available on this thread. What was the point of your mentioning these "karmic laws" if not as some reason for morality? The worst thing here is that you now try to insulate these preposterous ideas from scrutiny by saying you cannot discuss them because I haven't swallowed your unexplained notion of the spirit. You see, if we can discuss nature and matter because we both accept their existence, then surely you should be ready to discuss this new field you're introducing. If your arguments are good, who knows? You may be able to convince me or someone else.

The claim that someone else won't accept something so you won't bother explaining it is based on either your hubris or your fear that there really is nothing to that idea. The lay person would find it difficult to understand black-holes, quantum mechanics and cosmic evolution. Yet the experts take the time to explain these things but Mr Deep Sight can't be bothered to explain to us his notions of karma and the spirit because we don't accept them already. Ignoring the fact that the features I mentioned weren't accepted some time ago but became accepted with evidence and explanation.

Deep Sight:
I have more than abundantly canvassed and expatiated on my view that the strict materialist cannot have a quarrel with that which is standard fare in material nature as it also demonstrably occurs to humans - who are part of material nature. Your views, on the other hand, have been wild contradictions of these basic facts.

No, all you have done is to say that with your sloppy thinking, you're willing to accept a logical fallacy therefore I should make one for you to say you accept. I've tried hard to avoid such poor thinking and your encouragement for me to start thinking poorly won't make me start now.

Pastor AIO:

Number of points. 1) I never said that 'we cannot know anything'. For instance I said that I can be sure that 'I' exist. How and where, I may not know, but I know that I exist.

2) No statement crumbles with your approach above. Rather you are caught in a paradox. It is Paradox that certain people find so unpalatable. Yet we find Paradox in every system of thought. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then don't think too deeply about life.
What you consider a crumbling argument is what I would term a mystery. I can't remember where exactly but I have defined my used of 'mystery' on nairaland before as 'Not a catch all term for the as yet unknown, but rather a term for the Unknowable'.

Many say something is a mystery but they hope that with time the mystery will clear up and they'll know.

I say there are somethings that are beyond the categories of knowledge. When we approach these things we are met with paradox. That shows that you are at the limits of knowledge/beliefs/epistemological claims.

So if I get you correctly, you are saying that you know that you exist period. The rest is a mystery/paradox? If that's what you are saying, then I won't push this further because I see no way out this. Let's move on to things that are not so mysterious shall we?

3) I would not just say that Morality was subjective. I would say that I have a bias for my morality. This bias instinctively makes me fight to defend my biased morals. It's a common method when say a theist and an atheist from the same country are arguing over morality, that an example is advanced, say cannibalism. 'Is cannibalism moral'? Of course the other party would never say cannibalism was moral because he comes from the same cultural milieu as the person asking the question and so has the same bias to hate cannibalism.
No, such an approach is just plain dumb. The perfect response to that question would be, 'I, too, find cannibalism objectionable because I've been raised to do so and I will go to the end of the world to have it stamped out, however to demonstrate that it is an objective moral, my friend, you would have to travel to Papua New Guinea and convince some aborigines with logic and arguments that it is morally wrong. If you can do that then I'll start to concede that it might be universal.'

You see questions like "is cannibalism wrong? Yes or No" strike me as lazy questions that have no interest in understanding morality but are more interested in winning arguments. I'd rather ask the question "why is cannibalism wrong?" That leads us beyond merely the action to the intent which is where moral judgments are actually made.

I'll link you to a comment I made earlier on this, read it and tell me what you think, let us discuss further from there.

Here it is:

my comment on the nature of morality

Deep Sight:

Your issues on consciousness will be better addressed on that thread. I am writing an epistle for it, and it would not be efficient to repeat myself.

But just as a little teaser, do your body parts form voltron or do they work for voltron?

Form

Deep Sight:
O dear, o dear. I am really surprised that you fellows do not see the dilemma of someone who says that only physical nature exists and yet seeks to locate his morality on something else?

I don't think you understand their position, even if you're more familiar with it than me. Can't quote on device, but you mention natural up there, and I would have thought that's more or else all there's to it. With a focus on this; the abstract is useless without the physical, simple. All of nature builds on the physical, even consciousness. (I, personally, believe there is a way to turn potential, which is abstract, to physical real in a sense. But that's another story, and doesn't really affect much here anyhow.)

How exactly does consciousness work? Remains to be seen. Physical components working together? Undeniable. Physical components with the ability to abstract, or compute. All natural, or would an ai qualify as supernatural?


The animals you speak of doing natural things which are questionable by human moral standards, do they not possess emotions? They may lack the ability to reason and thus operate (more or else) on instinct, but many undeniably have emotions.

Now, if materialists were to use said animals as an excuse to kill wantonly, have they not already accepted that emotions, instinct, etc, exist? This is what drives these beings, no? They feel something, then act on it. Just like us, except with much worse reasoning skills. So feelings, emotions, etc, their nature may be debatable, but they are indeed natural and ubiquitous. They are also dependent on the physical

Materialist simply has to point out that aided by his superior ability to reason, naturally attained, achieving his goals need not involve eating fellow human beings. In fact, that would be disadvantageous in most situations. Nature might have fumbled on with such practices through time, but nature lacks the ability to reason, yes? And again, his goals may be to save as many humans as he can manage, or to treasure all life, etc. Goals need not make any sort of rational sense, they're ultimately built around emotional rewards, clearly not rational.

Deep Sight:
Don't make me laugh, lol, none of you have shown a single thing whatsoever on this thread.

We have.

Deep Sight:
If physical nature is all that exists, it must perforce be the reference point for morality, simple. How anyone can ask for an explanation of that, just beats me.

It is, but indirectly. Your consciousness for the most part depends on your brain, a physical component. No brains, no morals.

Deep Sight:
It is like agreeing that every cake in the world is made of flour and yet insisting that you have a cake that's made of something else.

It is also agreeing that everyone will perceive the cake differently. Some would be thinking of so and so while eating it, some will love it, others hate it, etc. But all cakes are made of flower. All natural.

Deep Sight:
Thus, saying that everything that exists is physical nature, but then saying that you have something that is NOT physical nature!

How is this a logical fallacy, as thehomer lazily claims? Res ipsa loquitor! The thing speaks for itself!

I doubt that's what they're saying.

Deep Sight:
That is the meaning of strict materialism. That everything is physical matter, and we and all living things are, and derive from the interplay of physical matter alone. In the first place one wonders why things that derive from mindless interactions of matter need to have any moral compunctions at all. In the second, and more relevant case, one wonders why the strict materialist would then seek to dissociate himself from the territorial and predatory inter working evident in ALL of nature?

1. Because mindless interactions can eventually become complex enough to attain (our sort of) consciousness. Making better and better computations

2. Consciousness, again.

Deep Sight:
In other words, he is trying to stand aside from and dissociate himself from something that he says is the only thing that exists and is ALL that exists!

Beat that man!

Its an absurd, absurd absurd stance.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that there is NOBODY on this planet that lives his life with this stance in mind. Nobody whatsoever. There are only baby atheists with poorly thought out views who claim that they are strict materialists. No human being can actually be one - for that would entail denying his very thoughts, which are not physical things. His very emotions, which are not physical things. His very ideas and conceptions, which are not physical things. His imaginations and fantasies, which aren't physical things.

I doubt their stance is this simplistic. One could say only an armchair philosopher could assume that that is they're claim, but that's contingent on various factors

thehomer:
To put it simply, it is that everything that exists is physical. Note that this doesn't mean that certain phenomena don't emerge out of the physical.

Now, what are you trying to say? I hope that you'll also be willing to let us examine your views.

It is these sorts of vacuous statements I don't like. You really have told us nothing about what you mean when you say something is physical and how we can differentiate it from non-physical things.

You might as well have said: "To put it simply, it is that everything that exists is spiritual. Note that this doesn't mean that certain phenomena don't emerge out of the spiritual"

All you have done is put everything under your "physical" umbrella while being careful to leave the door open for yourself in case there are "certain phenomena" that may not be considered physical. So please explain your worldview properly and stop hiding behind shadows

to quote one of your comments again (ironically this was you accusing me of your crimes):

......I notice that as usual, you're unable to actually present your own view and defend it. You just prefer to chuck out pointless diversion. A tactic that you and others in your shoes have accused me of without showing evidence for your accusations. Your attempts are just so obvious its embarrassing.

So once again;

[size=17pt]@thehomer, why don't you explain what your own brand of materialism is so that we'll understand what it is you're trying to say?[/size]

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 are confusing objectivity with necessity. Physical laws are objective yet they are not necessary hence they could have been fine-tuned. You can easily have a universe where the speed of light, gravitational constant e.t.c had very different values. Same with morality, it is easy to imagine a possible world where torturing babies for fun is not objectively morally wrong. The fact that we ought to live in a particular way and not another is strong indication of a transcendent moral law and hence a moral lawgiver.

thehomer:

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.

@bold. I didn't know you believed human well-being was dependent on living to the glory of God. . .or were you just misrepresenting me again?

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

I just wanted to hear what you thought of the post and the ideas therein. I don't want to give you a soundbite. Do you think that post accurately describes how morality is objective? If yes cool. If no, why don't you think so?

wiegraf:

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

reductio ad absurdum

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.

Do you really understand the meaning of "truly"

wiegraf:
Stop right there.

What determines your reason, what determines your objectives?

In what sense do you mean?