Deep Sight:

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.

1. I think Knowledge in this case if quite different from carnal knowledge (not sex).

2. It guides the individual. Yes, it can't really be used to provide a moral code book for society.

3. I don't understand number 3.

4. Yes, I know very well. That is why it is important to stay connected, but I know all to well how it is to slip and fall.

Deep Sight:

Pastor in wonderland! Conveniently referring to good and nice instinctual urges, Lol.

^^^ Lol, you conveniently forget the deluge of bad, bad, very bad instinctual urges that mankind also have!

Many of them even perverse in the extreme!

There's no pushing the matter with you. Whichever way we turn, you have made it an absurdity that cannot be discussed.

That is the first level of morality that I discussed- our survival instincts.

We have instincts to do many good things for our survival, however, we also have many bad instincts as well.


This is why the first level can be regarded as our "animalistic morality"

The next level is morality based on logic. Logic is used to hone our instincts- imagine you see a naked woman with big bosoms on the floor.....instinctively, your first thought is to touch the boobs but reasoning will tell you that you are molesting the woman without consent.


logic hones our instinctive morality......



But Deepsight loves to ignore arguments that debunk his position

Deep Sight:

Pastor in wonderland! Conveniently referring to good and nice instinctual urges, Lol.

^^^ Lol, you conveniently forget the deluge of bad, bad, very bad instinctual urges that mankind also have!

Many of them even perverse in the extreme!

There's no pushing the matter with you. Whichever way we turn, you have made it an absurdity that cannot be discussed.

What difference does it make whether the Urges are nice or bad? The fact is that we find ourselves experiencing a world. We find ourselves experiencing all sorts of urges. We discover that there seems to be some rigor and connectedness between the various events in this world of experience, so we are aware that our acts have consequences.

All these things affect our behaviour and also our sense of morality.

thehomer:
Then you have implicitly accepted that genocide for the purpose of taking people's lands is not immoral.

This is just you yanking things right out of context. Carefully omitting that the person you are accusing not only owns the land but actually owns the very lives of his "victims". He created them and kept them alive and could decide to withdraw his gift of life whenever he wanted, besides he didn't have them wiped out rather he had them driven out.

This is you just getting confused on the use of objectivity. The point of view of the "designer" isn't objective, it is his point of view. Necessity is something else entirely. Necessity implies that it cannot be any other way.

But we are arguing human morality not so? If moral principles are objective to humans but not necessary principles, wouldn't that be strong evidence that humans have a designer?

See the end of my response yet again.
No, I'm asking you for a link to where I made the claim you're attributing to me.

Lol, I'll let this pass because I'm too lazy right now to scroll through all your posts on this forum.

Asked and answered.

You mean another vague answer without carefully explaining how any of them leads us to objective morals for humans instead of that of other animals
judgement - How so? if by this you mean moral judgment, then you are merely begging the question because moral judgment already presupposes morality.
science - how so?
empathy - how so? Other animals have empathy too, besides the fact that I know it will hurt a dog if I kill it does not place a moral obligation upon me to spare it
biology - how so?

Now can you tell me why God's views are objective but not the alien's?

I didn't realize we were talking about the morality of the alien. We were talking about an alien observing animals on planet earth and seeing them all at every level killing each other, would it come to the conclusion that human morality was any different from dog and lion morality or that humans had any special value as moral beings?

How does your question relate to what we've been talking about?

Logicboy03: This is why the first level can be regarded as our "animalistic morality"

All due respect to our elders in the house. Is there anything like animalistic morality? If there is, is it congenital or acquired?

Deep Sight:

Ol boy no tricks. The spirit gets information from the entire spiritual environment about it, just as the brain gets information from the entire material environment about it.

This in no way suggests or infers that the spirit would have a panoramic view of all eternity and all permutations of all events, period. So stop dancing about ol pal.

Okay, no wahala.

Deep Sight:

If only one human being ever existed, there would be no discussion on morals, would there?

You see? Same ol, same ol.

Abeg.

I thought you were establishing a morality for the entire human race and now have settled for just Group morality (ie one social group). But no! It's worse you want to reduce the issue to a one-man-matter.

Well if one humanbeing existed there would still be morals, but yeah, you're right there won't be any discussion on morals, unless the dude spoke to himself.

Pastor AIO:


Not quite.

I know I exist. I know I have experiences. I believe various things about my experiences with varying degrees of certainty. I realise that at the heart of all thought systems I've come across is paradox. Leading me to believe, with fairly high certainty, that all thought systems are bounded by paradox.

Let's move on, indeed. I'd rather talk about stuff that can be spoken about.




I hear what you said. And this is what I said earlier in this thread and elsewhere which I believe is not too far away from what you are saying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I was referring to the abandoning of twins actually. Worldview has a great effect on what you think is morally right or wrong.

In other words the attitude to dead, whether it is murder, or suicide, or illness, of a person depends a great deal on his worldview. If for instance he believes in life after death, or reincarnation then death is a much more trifling affair. If he thinks that he will be going to a party in Valhalla if he dies in battle that is going to affect how he will fight.
If he thinks he is going to paradise to have sex with 72 virgins if he blows himself up, then he is not going to consider that move such a waste of life.

It is actually the Atheist/materialist viewpoint that sees a life as a one off 'miraculous' event that considers it more preciously. You hear them say things like, 'you only have one life' 'live life to the max cos one day you'll just die'. The man who is hoping for an afterlife is going to live this life with an eye to 'making heaven' even to the extent of compromising the fullness with which he lives this life. It'll even be okay to burn a heretic at the stake so as to eventually 'save his eternal soul'.

Interesting, I hear you and I think I get you but I don't know if you got me.
What I was pointing at was basic moral principles and the example I gave was "a murderer deserves to be killed". On the other hand, you are pointing to more superficial things like religious and cultural beliefs. I am of the opinion that at the very basic level, we will find that all people submit to the same moral laws, culture, religion and political ideology are merely a framework built around it.

Consider the following examples

1. All peoples believe that love is a virtue and hate is a vice
2. All peoples believe that courage is a virtue and cowardice is a vice
3. All peoples believe that diligence is a virtue and laziness is a vice
4. All peoples believe that chastity is a virtue and promiscuity is a vice
5. All peoples believe that impartiality is a virtue and partiality is a vice etc etc

Notice that differing worldviews when they clash accuse the opposing view of exactly the same vices for instance, they may both call each other liars. This is not because one has a moral compass where honesty is a virtue and the other has a different moral compass where honesty is a vice no. Both of them believe honesty is a virtue, they only believe different things to be true.

You can see this in almost everywhere you look. To merely sit back and judge their actions without looking at the underlying reasons for their actions is to me not the way to go.

Reyginus: All due respect to our elders in the house. Is there anything like animalistic morality? If there is, is it congenital or acquired?

smh

Mr anony:

And you very conveniently missed this:

I didn't miss it, what you tacked on was simply irrelevant to the idea of well-being. Or do you once again wish to use some mystical notion of well-being?

LightningLord:

You say an action cannot be judged moral without reason. What determines the reason? What motivates man?

Only the man that performed the deed knows exactly what motivated him.

thehomer:

I didn't miss it, what you tacked on was simply irrelevant to the idea of well-being. Or do you once again wish to use some mystical notion of well-being?

Interesting. So you conveniently ignored it in order to help your quote-mining exercise along. Very interesting indeed

Ihedinobi:

@bolded: I presume you mean non-physical phenomena, am I right? If I am, would that not negate the position that "everything that exists is physical? If I am not, what kind of phenomena did you feel the need to alert me to?

No it won't. I'm referring to phenomena like consciousness, intelligence and their likes.

Mr anony:
Interesting.....as they say, the madman never knows that he is mad, he thinks everyone else is crazy.

Yes. It is why I find it amazing that you find clear distinctions problematic.

Mr anony:
Good, now following from your materialist worldview. Here are a few questions

I hope you're also going to answer these same questions.

Mr anony:
1. Do objective moral principles exist, If yes can you describe some of them and what the laws are based on?

Yes I think they do. e.g Commanding genocide in order to take away some people's land is immoral. This is based on facts like there are ways of obtaining the use of land without committing genocide. Now, you answer this same question.

Mr anony:
2. Why should people act a certain way and not another? for instance, do you think child pornography is objectively morally wrong? Mind you, there is no physical contact between the child and the watcher, also the child need not know he/she is being filmed.

Sure child pornography is immoral for various reasons like the fact that child cannot consent to being used in that way. After all, the person viewing this pornography has other options like choosing adults who have consented. Now, you answer that same question.

Mr anony:
3. If child pornography is morally wrong, on what basis is it morally wrong? If it is right, on what basis is it right?

It is wrong on the bases I've written above. Now you answer the same question.

Mr anony:
4. Do humans have an intrinsic value or is it merely the opinion of humans that they are valuable.

Both.

Mr anony:
5. From a materialist point of view, does life have a meaning/purpose? if yes, what is it and how do you know? If no, why should one live objectively according to any particular manner if life has no purpose

What do you mean by "life" and "meaning" here? Maybe after you've answered this question including what you mean by those words, I'll be able to better answer your question.

thehomer:

No it won't. I'm referring to phenomena like consciousness, intelligence and their likes.

So then, you mean that I am right about the phenomena being non- or meta-physical. How does it not negate your position that "everything that exists is physical"? Consider that you have just conceded the existence of things or phenomena that are not strictly physical.

Mr anony:
What other context have we been talking about? Keep dodging

You should go back and find out why you asked that question. Don't push your own misconceptions on me.

Mr anony:
Out of the moral context again. Besides I never said that a perfect being has perfect choices, in fact I was arguing that because man could choose between good and evil, he could become imperfect even though he was perfectly good at the beginning. It was you who tried to suggest that a perfect being would have perfect choices. Please stop shifting your burden to me. It is either you have forgotten what you were arguing or you are just being dishonest.

I am telling you that a perfect being would only make perfect choices. Trying to argue otherwise simply means that you're implicitly saying that your perfect God could also become imperfect. So, once again, without trying to shift your burden to me, can you tell me why a perfect being would make imperfect decisions?

Mr anony:
Please show how X is different from Y. Please show how God's command to kill the children of the land is different from God's command to kill the children of the land. And please don't try to shift your burden again. You are the one claiming that it is immoral and I am the one asking you on what basis it is immoral.

Once more, you're trying to run from direct questions. X is God's command, Y is what carrying out what that command entails. Do you think that it is moral or not? That is my question. You've started dancing away from answering a direct question once again.

Mr anony:
We've been over this before. It is irrelevant what my opinions are, what is relevant here is what is objectively right vs what is objectively wrong and how we know this. If that is not what you are interested in, I can't help you.

Again, your double standard reveals itself. I'll just ask you the same question again. Do you think commanding a genocide for the purpose of taking people's land is moral or immoral? This appears to be the question that you cannot answer.

Deep Sight:
@ Lightninglord. I am sorry but I cannot make head or tail of your posts. Perhaps you need the whole thread in your spare time. If you cannot do that, answering these specific questions would help -

1. What is strict materialism.

Borrowing wiki

wiki:
In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

Deep Sight:
2. Does strict materialism admit of the existence of anything non-physical?

Borrowing wiki again

wiki:
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many,[2][3][4] all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of and how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter.[4]

Deep Sight:
3. Are humans animals?

Yes

Deep Sight:
4. Is it wrong for smarter animals to develop smarter ways of effecting natural predatory and territorial behavior?

By my standards, if you mean inflicting more pain on life rather than making it more humane (with an eye towards eradicating it completely), yes.

Deep Sight:
5. Is the predatory territorial behavior IN FACT observed [b]both historically and currently[/b]y among humans in nature.

What do you mean? Yes, but obviously our moral codes (and therefore this behavior) is much more complex

Deep Sight:
6. Is it possible to qualify either historical human predatory territorial behavior among themselves as immoral.

Yes

Deep Sight:
7. Q. 6 for same behavior in modern times?

Yes

Deep Sight:
WOW! SOMETHING JUST OCCURRED TO ME!

I WONDER WHAT OUR FRIENDS HERE THINK ABOUT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AND THE VARIOUS LAWS DEVELOPING AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!

OMG! THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS UP THE ARGUMENTS AS TRULY EMPTY AND WORTHY OF THE TRASH CAN!

OMG!

1. - - - It is morally okay to kill and eat animals

Quoting myself waaaay back, first post

me:
All this is my view only.

..........

Ideally, no. But I wouldn't apply the same standards to both sentient and non-sentients. I think it would be silly, so yes. It's acceptable and unavoidable. Some what related (but not really) sef, think of all the micro-life you kill inadvertently or necessarily.

Deep Sight:
2. - - - It is not morally okay to hurt or torture animals

Quoting myself waaaay back, first post again

me:
No. As we're capable of advanced reasoning I hold us to higher standards. But I'm hypocritical.

Deep Sight:
3. - - - (2) above, hold true because animals are living creatures that feel pain, hurt, fear and psychological stress and grief

Yes

Deep Sight:
4. - - - But it is morally okay to kill and eat animals

For me, again, no. But I'm hypocritical.
A necessary evil, if you will.

Deep Sight:
I guess the Hindus are on to something after all!

OMG! This discussion is a hypocritical waste of time.

Yes and no, for various reasons, and probably not for the same reasons I imagine you would think of

Deep Sight:

What you fail to understand is that a fallacious notion of things will deny the person being fallacious or absurd from using the legitimate logical fallacy as his defense.

In this regard alleging the fallacy of natural appeal [b]cannot avail some one who says that only physical nature exists: this is because that would mean there is nothing else for him to appeal to. Must explaining this to you be so painful?[/b]

Now because you are being so dull on this matter I will spell it out for you with a few examples. Let me randomly pick some logical fallacies and show you how they cannot avail the person adopting an absurd stance against them.

Your statement alleging an appeal to nature, must be redundant against one (a strict materialist) who insists nature is all that exists, just as surely as -

This is an example of a propositional fallacy:

Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

If a person tells me that I am committing this fallacy, he cannot also be a person who believes that if A, then B; B, therefore A in his own argument. Such a person will not be entitled to say that I am committing a fallacy by accusing him of same, if his argument itself holds such. In the same way, the strict materialist cannot shout "wrong! appeal to nature!" when his very strict materialism stands squarely on nature and nature alone and admits nothing else to exist.

The queer illogicallity of this is further shown by the fact that an appeal to nature must be correct and acceptable, if indeed, as the strict materialist says, physical nature is all that exists.

This is why the strict materialist cannot allege an appeal to nature as a logical fallacy! His worldview MUST endorse appeals to nature as he says that physical nature IS ALL THAT EXISTS!

In fact, this is so hair-raisingly obvious that I feel like a dumb ass eediot having to explain it this many times. But that is what talking to you does to one.

Therefore I am not going to repeat myself one more time on this one: it makes me nauseous and feel like puking.

So you're seriously saying that a materialist cannot point out that someone else is making or wants them to make a fallacious appeal to nature? This has to be one of the most absurd and ridiculous ideas I've heard in a while.

Deep Sight:
Oh no, this is not true, I have interacted with you for years on this forum and have abundantly expressed my views, take and reasons for the spirit. Going back to such will be like going back to argue trinity with davidylan, which I have done a zillion times. It would be st.upid, infantile, even. Nevertheless if you want my views again I am labouring over a short epistle in a thread Plaetton opened on Consciousness and I will say my all on Spirituality there, you can always read it if interested.

Well if you want us to have a discussion of morality, it has to be a two way street so I'd rather you be ready to defend the ideas you present as you question mine.

Deep Sight:
You still dont get it. I am not the one willing to accept a logical fallacy. I say that the strict materialist atheist MUST accept that fallacy because he says nothing else exists. Simple.

And I've told you over and over again that they do not have to accept a logical fallacy because of your own misunderstanding.

double post.

Mr anony:
This is just you yanking things right out of context. Carefully omitting that the person you are accusing not only owns the land but actually owns the very lives of his "victims". He created them and kept them alive and could decide to withdraw his gift of life whenever he wanted, besides he didn't have them wiped out rather he had them driven out.

All you're doing here is trying to justify genocide by saying "because God". What do you think happens to your ideas of objective moral values? If you're willing to accept that, then you're willing to accept that torturing babies for land isn't objectively wrong because if God commanded it, then it would be right since he owns the child and the land.

Mr anony:
But we are arguing human morality not so? If moral principles are objective to humans but not necessary principles, wouldn't that be strong evidence that humans have a designer?

No it isn't evidence of a designer. Does the presence of the designer mean that there are objective moral values or does the presence of objective moral values mean that there is a designer?

Mr anony:
Lol, I'll let this pass because I'm too lazy right now to scroll through all your posts on this forum.

And this is what you do when you know you don't have the evidence to support your claim.

Mr anony:
You mean another vague answer without carefully explaining how any of them leads us to objective morals for humans instead of that of other animals
judgement - How so? if by this you mean moral judgment, then you are merely begging the question because moral judgment already presupposes morality.
science - how so?
empathy - how so? Other animals have empathy too, besides the fact that I know it will hurt a dog if I kill it does not place a moral obligation upon me to spare it
biology - how so?

Take them together. The fact that humans can judge whether or not certain actions have certain effects on others, the fact that using the tools available from science to inform human values, the fact that with empathy, we can mentally put ourselves in other people's shoes and the fact that our biology supports complex thinking these all mean that we can reasonably tell whether or not certain actions help or hinder our well-being.


Now can you tell me how the presence of your God says anything about how humans ought to behave? Recall that God's mere existence has no bearing on how humans ought to behave neither does the claim that he created humans mean that humans ought to behave in a certain way. All that would mean is that he wants humans to act in a certain way.

Mr anony:
I didn't realize we were talking about the morality of the alien. We were talking about an alien observing animals on planet earth and seeing them all at every level killing each other, would it come to the conclusion that human morality was any different from dog and lion morality or that humans had any special value as moral beings?

How does your question relate to what we've been talking about?

My question is related to your idea that a God is required for objective morality. If the alien armed with its knowledge determines that it is objectively immoral for humans to commit genocide, then why do we need your God when talking about objective morality?

Mr anony:
Interesting. So you conveniently ignored it in order to help your quote-mining exercise along. Very interesting indeed

As I said, what you tacked on was irrelevant.

Ihedinobi:

So then, you mean that I am right about the phenomena being non- or meta-physical. How does it not negate your position that "everything that exists is physical"? Consider that you have just conceded the existence of things or phenomena that are not strictly physical.

They're not physical in the way that a ball is physical, they're physical in the sense that they're brought about by the interactions of physical structures.

Now how would you like to explain the presence of those phenomena?

Mr anony:
Only the man that performed the deed knows exactly what motivated him.

Che...

Anyways, wiki

Mr anony:
Motivation is a psychological feature that arouses an organism to act towards a desired goal and elicits, controls, and sustains certain goal directed behaviors. It can be considered a driving force; a psychological one that compels or reinforces an action toward a desired goal. For example, hunger is a motivation that elicits a desire to eat.

Motivation has been shown to have roots in physiological, behavioral, cognitive, and social areas. Motivation may be rooted in a basic impulse to optimize well-being, minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure. It can also originate from specific physical needs such as eating, sleeping or resting, and sex.

Motivation is an inner drive to behave or act in a certain manner. "It's the difference between waking up before dawn to pound the pavement and lazing around the house all day."[1] These inner conditions such as wishes, desires, goals, activate to move in a particular direction in behavior.

In summary, motivation can be defined as the purpose for, or psychological cause of, an action.[2]

My point being all these are very, very, subjective. They need not be rational. And these drive your moral code.

What a waste of time.

thehomer:

They're not physical in the way that a ball is physical, they're physical in the sense that they're brought about by the interactions of physical structures.

Now how would you like to explain the presence of those phenomena?

Oga, "physical" has a very specific meaning, I think. Can these phenomena be fit into that meaning?

Kay 17:

Note that the materialist stands in awe of the dynamism of matter. Is an existentialist a materialist too??

Sharing a common feeling is not enough basis to say they are the same.

wiegraf:

So, as it's 'logical' to be a cannibal, why don't you try eating someone so we can see the results? We can then determine if society would deem the act moral as it's logical.

That's a possibility I would consider if I were strapped with another human in an extremely isolated place, at the peak of my limit to go on without food or water. You are also inanely ignoring artificial constraints such as laws against the act. The option is even shown less logical when I consider that there are other sources of food readily available.

Ihedinobi:

Oga, "physical" has a very specific meaning, I think. Can these phenomena be fit into that meaning?

What do you understand by 'physical' please?

Ihedinobi:

Oga, "physical" has a very specific meaning, I think. Can these phenomena be fit into that meaning?

Did you read the articles I referred you to?
How would you like to explain those phenomena?

thehomer:

Did you read the articles I referred you to?
How would you like to explain those phenomena?

What articles?

Pastor AIO:

What do you understand by 'physical' please?

Such things as are measurable by the five senses.

Ihedinobi:

What articles?

thehomer:
I gave that short response for the discussion to have a starting point but since you want an explanation, then you're welcome to read these articles.

I hope you're also ready to have your views questioned as this discussion proceeds.

Happy reading.

Sorry that was to Mr anony but see them for clarification.

Again, how would you address your questions?