Are humans inherently evil?

[Einherjar86]

It's not a case of loyalty (i.e. being loyal/behaving well towards your society as a holistic entity). Anytime someone does a business transaction (i.e. at a store) one is cohering to the moral scaffold of society. Only a complete psychopath could exist in a society without conforming to its functional moral/procedural structure - e.g. driving, walking on the street, buying stuff, not raping people etc). As they are harmful to the scaffold of society, psychopaths are locked away.

But do people conform to society's laws and rules because they believe it is for the society's benefit? Or do they act in such a way because they know if they don't they will be punished. Forced atrition doesn't qualify as morality. I'm not sure that I'm willing to define society as a "moral scaffold," or at least in the way that you're envisioning it. If someone refuses to engage in the same said "business transaction," is he or she now "evil?" I don't think you can dignify things like financial decisions as "moral."

 

[The_Walrus]

But do people conform to society's laws and rules because they believe it is for the society's benefit?

no, in general. And they don't have to believe it. conforming to the social contract is simply the way society functions. it is to the individual's benefit to be able to order from a store without the owner taking his money, refusing to give him the goods and shooting him. It is also to society's benefit.

business "choice" is nothing to do with it. It's not at all a question of who one shops with, or whether one refuses to buy something because it is not good value.

Society is not a moral scaffold in itself. i didn't say this anywhere!. i say: society is a scaffold/structure/contract. ethical behaviour strengthens and makes stable this scaffold.

 

[Dominick_7]

You said the moral framework is what strengthens the social contract and if it florishes and is stable it would seem to be working..The point is..according to who and who's judgment or worldview? Who says stability means its working or that I need to strengthen the social contract? Says who? And who says that we ought to follow the laws of my society? Why SHOULD I do that vs try to destroy them? The problem I think with your views which seem to really be just basically views with no foundation, resting on clouds, is when they are challenged they have no basis from which to find justification..its all just about the PERCEIVED interpretation of what is moral VS what is self evidently and objectively moral. How is your view any different from making stuff up and playing make believe or reducing morality to preference and relativism? Ie your reply "Im a westerner" I take to mean "hey I wasnt raised to believe rape is ok in some cases..but hey who really knows right"? "Who am I to say for sure whats really right and wrong...AND...you OUGHT to, like, follow the laws of your society". If the moral framework has no objective basis in reality, why apply it to reality and suggest it should be used in objective reality in relationship to objective people and objective interactions/behavior?

The concept of judgement is not predicated on the concept of morality.

I agree, thats a matter of truth, but the act of rational discourse about differing views and differing moral views along with persuasion does I think imply a moral aspect in that the two moral views differ and each party is arguing for what they maintain is the better view, the one they think the other person ought to believe and live in light of. Unless of course you think your view is the same as mine, and you no longer disagree with me..if you really don't think there's a real difference, or you dont believe I ought to change my view, why are you trying to persuade me to change my mind via rational discourse?

I'm not. You should uphold the morality of your society. Actions which weaken the scaffold of society are evil. You "ought" not to do them because they are evil.

Evil in itself objectively or just perceived to be evil/evil "to you"?

Saying "there are no objective morals" is self-refuting. Why do you ignore my qualifier? (i.e. - based on what we know so far). Also, sure: cultures can disagre about morals. Look at the debate over the cremation of Hindu widows. It seems barbarous to westerners but not to many Hindus.

I agree with you here (it is self refuting) but why do you ignore the inconsistencies and contradictions in your view? If its self refuting/contradictory (as you say) to deny that there are objective morals, then wouldnt it follow by necessity that the opposite of that, namely the affirmation that there are objective morals have to be absolutely true? Its like mr Alan Dershowitz in a relatively recent debate with Alan Keyes I heard saying we can know whats evil but cant know what is right. Ridiculous. If you can know its wrong to murder a jew say during the Holocaust, then it necessarily follows that you know you should therefore instead care of and love a jew..ie if its not GOOD to do A, then it must be GOOD to do the opposite. BTW the issue isnt to convince a Hindu that murder is wrong, they both agree on that, the issue is whether to consider cremation in the case of the widowed woman murder or justified killing. What are you saying..that because there is some moral uncretainty on someones part, in a specific case, that means there are no objective moral laws??

It is indeed contradictory to say one ought never use oughts, this I think logically and rationally point out that it must therefore be true that oughts, moral law, isnt just a convention, or a framework people make up having no basis in objective reality..rather that its absolute that there are moral laws/oughts because one cant deny that without affirming that as true in the very process of the denial.

Also your "qualifier" is as self negating as saying there are no objective morals..for how can it be both self negating, which is absolutely certain knowledge letting us know what cannot be/is not possible, (thereby also showing us the opposite of that is true) AND it be based on what we only know SO FAR and I guess could be wrong about in your estimation? Is the knowledge absolute and certain as would be the case of the negative in denying objective morals, and the implied positive in affirming the reality of objective morals, OR would it only be something we know SO FAR..but could also be wrong? How can one be wrong about what is actually and necessarily true as in the self evident and undeniable truth that objective morals do exist?

The law and social etiquete dictates the moral code which is best supportive for a society. Those who break very ingrained social laws (muder rape) are fuckin' evil by societal consensus, those who break etiquette are slobs.

And...what dictates the law and social etiquette? Are they really evil when they break social laws or just perceived as evil because theyre not doing something really wrong by raping someone, theyre just doing something a majority or someone doesnt like? From your view point you actually couldnt come out and say rape is absolutely wrong, and there is no justification for it at any time..Reminds me of when the US did nothing about the holocaust for an amount of time.

Perhaps at least one on level youre confusing the principle with the way or manner it is expressed in culture to culture. The principle is respect, but the WAY you express that in say Japan is different in that you bow at a distance to each other, from how you would in say Spain and Italy where men and woman kiss each other on the cheek.

It's a moral interpretation of phenomena. Yes, there are other interpretations. As stated above, inductively all availble empirical and historical evidence supports this interpretation.

You gave ample evidence of other interpretations in the same breath when you contradicted yourself saying there are objective morals we know for certain AND there are not objective morals because we dont know them for certain.. and yet you do seem to think judgements, like ones about ethics, need to be coherent. Induction and deduction have a ground and that is reduction to first principles. Just like without the law of gravity you could not stay grounded on earth, but would just fly away into an oblivion, without first principles, like the law of non contradiction (being is not non being), the law of identity (being is being), the law of causality (non being cannot cause being), you could not know anything, think anything, or do anything. If a judgement goes against these principles, they are contradictory and or meaningless, if they are in line w and reducible to them, they are made evident by these principles, and are shown to be true..and they apply to objective reality not just abstract reality.


One can easily bring up immoral and unlawful individuals or groups of people in societies, but my point was more like what you said about the "universal optimal strategies", your verbal gymnastics to try to communicate objective morals without calling them that.. Most ofthe examples brought up were groups within civilizations and nations, not the over arching rulers. I would tend to think barbarians are not by nature for a normal sense of order or the concept of civilization so I dont see how that, groups in times of social unrest, or ruling factions applies. The bottom line is that the nature of moral laws and rational laws define themselves as objective and absolute, and that is how we can judge whether legislations are good or bad in principle..While all men have this ability to use common sense, unless it is strengthened, studied, and used in a more conscious fashion its more difficult to be able to communicate and defend a strong and correct position in the marketplace of ideas. I dont deny that there were groups of people who held irrational and immoral views, take Hitler, but largely when it comes to society or or nations you have over arching principes that virtually all would agree on..like you said when they did social wrongs it was wrong legislation and they at very least BELIEVED they were not really murdering and had a way to justify how it wasnt wrong. Even Hitler believed he actually was doing the right thing by cleansing the world of what he deemed as inferior races.

It's possible that universal optimum strategies for creating the scaffold of society might be discoverable. For example, most cultures don't enjoy murder, lying, stealing and consider these things evil. These things are evil in accordance to the internally coherent laws of a society.


Actions are not inherently good or evil but are interpreted as such in accordance to what strengthens a culture. If you raped a woman anywhere in the world, my culture would judge it as fucking evil.

You keep contradicting yourself. Above you said its self refuting/contradictory to deny that there are objective morals exist, which rationally and logically means that objective morals exist (because its impossible/contradictory that they dont exist) AND you say that objective morals dont exist because good and evil are not objective but subjective, ie they only exist in the mind, they are only how appear to people and are just basically subjective disconnected interpretations that dont correspond to actual objective reality.

As the above citations show, all available evidence suggests that there is no absolute agreement as to what constitutes good and evil between cultures.

Its OBVIOUS theres no absolute agreement on ALL the specifics of what is good and evil, as there are harder to understand moral issues in knowing where the moral line is, but as far as what you even said, its generally agreed upon by what can legitimately be called nations or societies, that murder, theft, lying etc are wrong, even IF they didnt all agree WHY would you think that disagreement MEANS that there is no self evident, absolute, objective truth particularly regarding moral law? All triangles have three sides is true even if NO ONE agrees with it. All it takes is to understand the terms, but if one is not willing to understand what the terms mean, or just dont understand them, then it may not be evident to them BUT it is STILL evident in itself.

 

[Dominick_7]

Not sure I entirely agree with this. Some people may have no moral obligation to their society whatsoever. If they serve an important purpose within their society, but believe (for whatever reason) that abandoning that society is in their best interest, they'll leave the community. Now, can we call their behavior "bad" because it is harmful to the society?



Christian doctrine says that "Thou shalt not steal," or kill, for that matter. However, these traits are inherent within Viking culture. They saw conquest as their right and a sign of strength, and the idea of "rape" was symbolic of their dominance over another culture. They did not believe that what they were doing was "wrong" or "evil."

Actually just to clarify something, context, original language, and renderings from the last 40-50+ years show that it isn't Thou Shall Not Kill, but Thou Shall Not Murder (UNjust killing). The hebrew word for murder is a completely different word for killing. I was in basic agreement with him in that there are large aspects of agreement on moral laws from culture to culture, not that there is complete agreement (many groups within societies have laws or moral views where they sanction evil but BELIEVE there is justification for it so that theyre not promoting it AS if it was evil like you said) because my point is that moral law doesnt come FROM societies, but rather that moral law is objective, just like the invisible law of gravity, and comes from a moral law giver, as all prescriptions come from a prescriber.

ALL people have an intuitive sense of what is right or wrong, there are some things that are obviously wrong, which historically nations have generally agreed with as being such, and there are some things that are obviously right, typically things associated with that which is done from a position of having character.,like honesty, faithfulness, bravery, wisdom, etc.. You can bring up a bunch of backwards evil things people or groups have done, but that doesnt negate moral law it only magnifies its reality..

Another thing that illustrates it is the issue of moral dissagreement, or real complaint about evil deeds..if evil is real if evil is objective, then so is its inverse and the law that allows one to differentiate between the two.

 

[The_Walrus]

You said the moral framework is what strengthens the social contract and if it florishes and is stable it would seem to be working..The point is..according to who and who's judgment or worldview? Who says stability means its working or that I need to strengthen the social contract? Says who?

Nobody needs to say so, since by definition society transcends the individual and grows without their "say so." I am in, of, and by society. I inhabit and think in the ethical ideas of my society. It cannot be prised from me; it's part of who civilised people in society are.

Why SHOULD I do that vs try to destroy them?

1 - Morality. Your conscience.
2 - If you don't, you go to jail! (punishment).

The problem I think with your views which seem to really be just basically views with no foundation, resting on clouds, is when they are challenged they have no basis from which to find justification..its all just about the PERCEIVED interpretation of what is moral VS what is self evidently and objectively moral.

Nope. There is no "versus." Real evil exists as that which denigrates the social contract.

How is your view any different from making stuff up and playing make believe or reducing morality to preference and relativism? Ie your reply "Im a westerner" I take to mean "hey I wasnt raised to believe rape is ok in some cases..but hey who really knows right"?

Nope, as I said: for my society, rape is wrong in every case anywhere in the world no matter which culture does it. How did you fail to detect that in my last post?

If the moral framework has no objective basis in reality, why apply it to reality and suggest it should be used in objective reality in relationship to objective people and objective interactions/behavior?

Reality is that societies exist; societies have morals valid everywhere on the globe.

I agree, thats a matter of truth, but the act of rational discourse about differing views and differing moral views along with persuasion does I think imply a moral aspect in that the two moral views differ and each party is arguing for what they maintain is the better view, the one they think the other person
ought to believe and live in light of.

My views are clear and logically consistent, enjoying a wealth of empirical and historical support; your views are logically consistent but have no historical or empirical support, and a large weight of counter-evidence, rendering them irrational.

Evil in itself objectively or just perceived to be evil/evil "to you"?

Not "to me." I guess I'll just say it again: real evil, determined as that which harms the social contract.

I agree with you here but why do you ignore the inconsistencies and contradictions in your view? If its self refuting/contradictory (as you say) to deny that there are objective morals, then wouldnt it follow by necessity that the opposite of that, namely the affirmation that there are objective morals have to be absolutely true?

No, you're making a category error. Again, I'll just say it again: it is inductively true that, as yet, there is no evidence to suggest that we have universal morality. It would be deductively self-refuting to state "there are no objective morals." On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that it is inductively true that objective morality exists, and because there is indeed a great deal of counter evidence, as listed in my above post, it would be simply false to deductively claim that objective morality exists.

Its like mr Berkowitz in a debate I heard saying we can know whats evil but cant know what is right. Ridiculous. If you can know its wrong to murder a jew say during the Holocaust, then it necessarily follows that you know you should therefore instead care of and love a jew instead..ie if its not GOOD to do A, then it must be GOOD to do the opposite.

How does this have any bearing on the discussion at hand? I claim very much to know what is right and wrong. Moral law is the cement in the social contract.

It is indeed contradictory to say one ought never use oughts, this I think logically and rationally point out that it must therefore be true that oughts, moral law, isnt just a convension, or a framework people make up having no basis in objective reality..

You're just repeating yourself here. Societies are very much based in reality.

rather that its absolute that there are moral laws/oughts because one cant deny that without affirming that as true in the very process of the denial.

I don't agree. All available evidence suggests that so far there is no objective moral law.

Also your "qualifier" is as self negating as saying there are no objective morals..for how can it be both self negating, which is absolutely certain knowledge letting us know what cannot be/is not possible, (thereby also showing us the opposite of that is true) AND it be based on what we only know SO FAR and I guess could be wrong about in your estimation?

This is pure sophistry. There is nothing self-refuting about my inductive deducement based on evidence, no matter how much you want there to be. As shown above, out of the four objective and inductive statements that can be made about morality, there is overwhelming evidence to support an inductive statement in my favour, and no evidence, and even massive counter evidence to support an inductive or deductive statement in your favour.

Is the knowledge absolute and certain as would be the case of the negative in denying objective morals, and the implied positive in affirming the reality of objective morals, OR would it only be something we know SO FAR..but could also be wrong? How can one be wrong about what is actually and necessarily true as in the self evident and undeniable truth that objective morals do exist?

It isn't "necessarily true" at all. It's actually, inductively, demonstrably false. Clearly you don't understand the nature of induction because you keep trying to draw deductive conclusions from inductive statements.

And...what dictates the law and social etiquette? Are they really evil when they break social laws or just perceived as evil because theyre not doing something really wrong by raping someone, theyre just doing something a majority or someone doesnt like?

You've tried to make this point many times. I guess I can just say it one final time: social structure grounds and dictates what is moral in that society as cement for that structure. Yes, we really do interpret rape as fucking evil, whoever does it, wherever they do it. Demonstrably and evidentially there are other cultures that do not.

From your view point you actually couldnt come out and say rape is absolutely wrong, and there is no justification for it at any time..Reminds me of when the US did nothing about the holocaust for an amount of time.

What a melodramatic conclusion. I guess I'll just say it again: i believe rape is always wrong. It's evil. It weakens the bonds of my society and human relations within it. Clearly other cultures believe differently. I can't empathise with then, I'm afraid, but I can observe this fact.

I have conclusively demonstrated how your position is invalid based on the available empirical and historical evidence.

Much like Xeno's paradox:

(A runner races against a tortoise and the tortoise has 10m head start)

1 - When the runner reaches the point where the tortoise was, the tortoise is further ahead and is at a new point.
2 - When the runner reaches this new point, the tortoise has moved forward some, as is at a new point.
3 - Therefore the runner can never overtake the tortoise

you're arguing abstract logic which is rendered false by empirical evidence. Logic is a machine that will grind out an answer that is consistent regardless of its propositions.

For example

1 - All buildings are 10cm high
2 - All men are 1.7m tall
3 - All men are taller than buildings

Is a logically coherent statement. Because the propositions are false, however, it is irrational.

If you are claiming that no amount of evidence can change challenge your propositons about morality, you are begging the question.

You gave ample evidence of other interpretations in the same breath when you contradicted yourself saying there are objective morals we know for certain AND there are not objective morals because we dont know them for certain..

Nope. I suggested that there might be discoverable optimum moral interpretations, just like there are ways to lay bricks to make them strongest. No certaity was implied, nothing about us "knowing them" was implied. You're trying to fit my statements into the Geisler machine (tm)! haha.

One can easily bring up immoral and unlawful individuals or groups of people in societies, but my point was more like what you said about the "universal optimal strategies", your verbal gymnastics to try to communicate objective morals without calling them that..

Nope. I knew you'd spin it that way! Successful societies clearly have successful moral codes.

Most ofthe examples brought up were groups within civilizations and nations, not the over arching rulers.

No they weren't. And you're missing the point. Something is either moral within a society is not. You're relativism here is self-defeating. If rape is state sanctioned in societies then we have no business making statements like "no societies endorse rape."

 

[The_Walrus]

Actually just to clarify something, context, original language, and renderings from the last 40-50+ years show that it isn't Thou Shall Not Kill, but Thou Shall Not Murder (UNjust killing). The hebrew word for murder is a completely different word for killing.

Christ said to love thy neighbour as yourself, love your enemeies and cast the first stone if you have no sin. All killing of another violates these rules, hence all killing is sinful in a christian sense, invalidating your above claims.

ALL people have an intuitive sense of what is right or wrong, there are some things that are obviously wrong, which historically nations have generally agreed with as being such

There is a wealth of evidence to show there is divergence from this. That you concede this at all by stating "generally" invalidates your core thesis.

and there are some things that are obviously right, typically things associated with that which is done from a position of having character.,like honesty, faithfulness, bravery, wisdom, etc..

Again naieve. Many cultures see knowledge and wisdom as sinful Buddhism is founded on Buddhist logic, which to you would all be false and dishonest. I have already demonstrated how Xtian bravery is Viking cowardice. Marxist culture values pragma over faith.

You can bring up a bunch of backwards evil things people or groups have done, but that doesnt negate moral law it only magnifies its reality..

I have provided evidence that there are different social interpretations of all the virtues and vices you have proposed universal so far.

 

[The_Walrus]

comes from a moral law giver, as all prescriptions come from a prescriber.

Further weakening your case is that there is no valid evidence for theism, and a strong case to be made against all theistic arguments.

An infinite being must exist outside of time and space. This is because time and space are finite. Both time and space began with the big bang. The evidence for this is:

1 - The second law of thermodynamics (which says that entropy increases in any given system with time. Go back in time and entropy decreases until all matter is united in a single point).

2 - Background radiation of the universe shows that galaxies are moving away from each other at an increasing speed. Run time backwards and they contract to a singilarity.

3 - The Hubble Space telescope has taken pictures from several tens of thousands of years after the big bang. The cosmic emissions from the event are visible in space.

4 - Einstein's theory of General Relativity proposes the origin of space and time.

5 - There is a simple philosophical argument to demonstrate the origins of space and time (i.e. to show that neither are infinite)

I - An infinite number of days has no end
II - But today I posted on a forum.
III - Therefore there were not an infinite number of days before today.

Conclusions:


1 - Given then that space and time are not infinite, an infinite being would have to exist outside of both. To posit "an" infinite being, then, is to spacialise what must exist outside of space. Furthermore "outside" is a spacial notion, as is "independently".

2 - An infinite being cannot be divided and therefore must lack nothing. Because theism holds that pantheism is false, the infinite being must lack the attributes of this physical universe. Therefore the concept of an infinite being is self-refuting.

3 - Something "outside" of space and time cannot interact with things in space and time unless it enters space time. To enter something is a spacial concept (you come from outside), hence talk of god interacting/entering space time is contradictory.

4 - In order to create space and time God would have to cause causality. This is impossible, since causing causality already presupposes causality. If you try to argue that god simultaneously caused causality then it is not possible to distinguish whether causality caused god or god caused causality and trying to determine this presupposes causality. Hence even if we grant his existence, god is contingent and not necessary and the cosmological argument and argument from contingency fail.

 

[Einherjar86]

ALL people have an intuitive sense of what is right or wrong, there are some things that are obviously wrong, which historically nations have generally agreed with as being such, and there are some things that are obviously right, typically things associated with that which is done from a position of having character.,like honesty, faithfulness, bravery, wisdom, etc.. You can bring up a bunch of backwards evil things people or groups have done, but that doesnt negate moral law it only magnifies its reality.

I don't agree with this. When you're a child you have no inherent sense of morality. We adopt a sense of right and wrong based on social conditioning and parenting. It's not something that is already conceived inside us.

Cultures impose different rituals and customs based on what characteristics ("virtues") they value more. The Vikings valued theft and conquest. These values are often frowned upon today. However, this doesn't make one moral system flawed. Cultures conceive of very different spiritual and societal systems, but none of them can be said to be incorrect. The ancient Romans had slaves, but it never crossed their minds that what they were doing was wrong. You cannot label certain actions as "evil," no matter how much you disagree with them.

 

[Einherjar86]

no, in general. And they don't have to believe it. conforming to the social contract is simply the way society functions. it is to the individual's benefit to be able to order from a store without the owner taking his money, refusing to give him the goods and shooting him. It is also to society's benefit.

business "choice" is nothing to do with it. It's not at all a question of who one shops with, or whether one refuses to buy something because it is not good value.

Society is not a moral scaffold in itself. i didn't say this anywhere!. i say: society is a scaffold/structure/contract. ethical behaviour strengthens and makes stable this scaffold.

I see what you're saying. But are you saying that contributing to the stability of the societal scaffold should be a person's primary concern?

 

[The_Walrus]

I see what you're saying. But are you saying that contributing to the stability of the societal scaffold should be a person's primary concern?

No. It's that ths societal scaffold makes it possible for a person to have any concerns whatsoever outside of "will that guy murder me?" "will that guy rape me?" This is a founding strategy of society: what is personally undesireable (e.g. in the west: rape, murder) and therefore preventative of people living together is grounded in a societal moral code and becomes engraved in people's consciences. This societal moral conscience is 1 - grounded, 2 - supported overwhelmingly by historical and empirical data and 3 - able to legislate what phenomena are good and what phenomena are evil. All grounded in the evolving structure of a society.

Over time some moral laws become discarded and replaced with others. For example, the Bible provides instructions on how to keep slaves, and to ensure slave relationships are as voluntary as possible on the part of the slave. We have come to see all guises of slavery as immoral. This is good evidence that we get our morals from an evolving societal conscience.

 

[razoredge]

No. It's that ths societal scaffold makes it possible for a person to have any concerns whatsoever outside of "will that guy murder me?" "will that guy rape me?" This is a founding strategy of society: what is personally undesireable (e.g. in the west: rape, murder) and therefore preventative of people living together is grounded in a societal moral code and becomes engraved in people's consciences. This societal moral conscience is 1 - grounded, 2 - supported overwhelmingly by historical and empirical data and 3 - able to legislate what phenomena are good and what phenomena are evil. All grounded in the evolving structure of a society.

Over time some moral laws become discarded and replaced with others. For example, the Bible provides instructions on how to keep slaves, and to ensure slave relationships are as voluntary as possible on the part of the slave. We have come to see all guises of slavery as immoral. This is good evidence that we get our morals from an evolving societal conscience.

good job fighting off the "its all Gods fault" part. Early in this topic I was stunned to find those that could not grasp evolution of the brain. Even more so the strong influence and peer pressure that tuff guys or bullies have had on meeker humans over the centuries. There are far more followers than leaders, so if the leaders say go rape and pillage, it insites primitive rabble mentality rather than human self evaluation of a given situation. Mankind was exposed to this from the beginning, whether it was Mosses or any other "Kings", heads of the church, current street gang mentality, the list could be endless. Yet I venture to believe that some men would have a tiny spark in their heads that thought "that aint right". These moments of hesitation from ancient barbaric brainwashing have evolved into a stronger influence, combined with the ability to think for ones self in modern times have created a more thoughtful human race.

Survival, territory, vengence will always be innate in humans but with our advanced view of things... these in themselves will restrain some from stepping on other peoples toes. Greed, jelousy and self gratification are the flaws by which mankind perpetuates his suffering

 

[BloodAndGory]

Words need more words.
Truth can only be found by looking within yourself in silence.

Words never fix anything, humans have been trying for so long, and some even believe in "progress", yet things keep getting better all the time, all the time, somehow without improving.

People always bring morals, rape and nazis into discussions such as these.
The holy scarecrows.

Consider this.
All our forefathers were rapists at some time or other. It makes good sense in a human gene pool to rape a woman, since it increases your chances of spreading your genes.

All nations had this. Rape and pillage is the nature of the game.

As for nazis being inherently evil- how are their actions different from what the US did in IRAQ, killing all those children?
The labels change, the actions stay the same.

On the other hand, look at all the "good" that people do.
Good and evil, the nature of the game.

In the end, no good without bad, one feeds the other, and both are just traps for us humans.
Don't believe words, don't believe lies.
Words never fix anything.

 

[razoredge]

^ what an evasive crock of shit

 

[Dominick_7]

Nobody needs to say so, since by definition society transcends the individual and grows without their "say so." I am in, of, and by society. I inhabit and think in the ethical ideas of my society. It cannot be prised from me; it's part of who civilised people in society are.



1 - Morality. Your conscience.
2 - If you don't, you go to jail! (punishment).

So Society is not made up of sentient beings that utter what is moral vs not moral? What part of society determines what is right? Where does it get its ethics? Better yet, what are ethics? Morality is the study of what is right, right behavior, and it deals with a standard of behavior that is appropriate and healthy, vs what is not. If the standard is not beyond the society, then no society can be judged as doing right or wrong. Conscience...? What is conscience in your view?

Nope. There is no "versus." Real evil exists as that which denigrates the social contract.

If evil is objectively wrong, then it is wrong for everyone at all times. If it is not, then evil is subjective, and nothing is wrong for anyone, all one can do is utter what they dont like. How do you know what denigrates the social contract. I dont remember making any sort of contract or signing anything..can you remind me of where I did that? You are playing semantics..real is that which is or has being. If evil is real and objective (outside of ones subjectivity, independent of the mind) then it is there independent of the individual and social mind. If it doesnt exist independent of the social mind, then it is not objective.

Nope, as I said: for my society, rape is wrong in every case anywhere in the world no matter which culture does it. How did you fail to detect that in my last post?

Uhh how do you get a view of morality where moral law is dependent on a society, and individuals, and then use that to be able to judge another society?? How can you judge everywhere absolutely and universally if the standard is based in that which is temporal?? If one is able to judge another society, then the standard one must appeal to is beyond both/all societies. If moral law is transcendent above and beyond society then it is identical to a Theistic concept of moral law. If it cannot judge societies, it cant judge or measure the individuals that comprise it. There is NO authority to a moral law that is dependent on individuals..it is just preference and subjectivity...societies dont act, individuals do. Societies dont put together anything, individuals do, and it is individuals that can violate moral law or live in accord with it..

Reality is that societies exist; societies have morals valid everywhere on the globe.

What makes them valid if they are dependent on humans, the very ones that most times are in violation of any standard? If humans make up what is right and wrong, then it is not a valid moral law..it would be like someone saying, hey I know you guys think I did something wrong, but I checked myself and know I'm ok with doing drugs. If the moral law is not transcendent beyond the humans that violate it, then it is useless and meaningless.

My views are clear and logically consistent, enjoying a wealth of empirical and historical support; your views are logically consistent but have no historical or empirical support, and a large weight of counter-evidence, rendering them irrational.

Your views may be consistent, but they are consistently wrong/incorrect. Again you keep appealing to useless epistemologies that do NOT render truth. Something can be consistent but consistently wrong. Truth is not that which is consistent. Truth is not what works because like I said before, lies can "work" in the short run. But just because a lie may work in the work run, that doesnt make the lies true or right to tell. Truth also is not what feels good, because a report card may make you feel bad if its a bad grade, but the fact that it makes you feel bad doesnt make the reporting false. Truth is not anything OTHER than that which corresponds to reality/its referent. If a statement matches reality, or the thing its refferring to, then its true, if it does not match, its false. Because you seem to consciously and willfully reject commonsense, self evident reason, for logic alone which allows you feel like you can justify any fantasy, including a world with no God you will be held accountable to, you end up in the wrong place in regards to your interpretation of reality.

BTW I have pointed out contradiction after contradiction in your view..You seem to know what self refuting means, but dont see how your views are..and dont seem to be able or willing to see that because your views are contradictory they are not consistent either.

Not "to me." I guess I'll just say it again: real evil, determined as that which harms the social contract.

So is it evil to a social contract made up by someone or a group of people right? Are you saying that because its evil TO a bunch of people that makes it evil? If so HOW is that objective?

No, you're making a category error. Again, I'll just say it again: it is inductively true that, as yet, there is no evidence to suggest that we have universal morality. It would be deductively self-refuting to state "there are no objective morals." On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that it is inductively true that objective morality exists, and because there is indeed a great deal of counter evidence, as listed in my above post, it would be simply false to deductively claim that objective morality exists.

Why is it deductively self refuting to say there are no objective morals?Its NOT inductively true that objective morality exists, its REDUCTIVELY true, that objective morals ACTUALLY exist. Theres a thing called reason, if you try to deny it or its principle it will pull the rug out from under your feet. Its NOT deductivlely true that its self refuting to say there are no objective morals, its REDUCTIVELY true that its self refuting to say there are no objective morals. That is, because that statement cannot be reduced to First Principles of REASON (which deals with material truth about ACTUAL reality, and not just logic that only deals w validity and consistency) it is false and therefore contradicts itself. Its a basic first principle that one should do what is right and avoid doing what is wrong, because wrong is wrong, and right is right and theres a real difference. Your statements, because they completely avoid REASON, that which deals with ACTUAL REALITY,are void and without content. The second you try to fill them with content by having them reference ACTUAL reality INDEPENDENT of the mind and mere logic you end up contradicting yourself. Ok let me try it this way...what does it mean when you tell someone close to you that you dont not care about them? That that means you DO care, no?

How does this have any bearing on the discussion at hand? I claim very much to know what is right and wrong. Moral law is the cement in the social contract.

Isnt it that you claim to know what is right and wrong according to the very people who violate this standard? What is a social contract?

You're just repeating yourself here. Societies are very much based in reality.

Societies are based in reality BUT either they are made up of individuals who do right and wrong or not. If society is made up of these individuals then how is society beyond individuals, thus beyond subjectivity? If society is beyond the individuals in it, then tell me what it looks like so I can give it a piece of my mind. How is society beyond individuals..in what sense is it beyond individuals? Which PART of society makes up this social contract and if its society that does this why are individuals bound to it? Last time I checked societies dont DO anything, individuals do.

I don't agree. All available evidence suggests that so far there is no objective moral law.

Didnt you just say its self refuting to say there is no objective moral law? Contradiction number what? 5?

This is pure sophistry. There is nothing self-refuting about my inductive deducement based on evidence, no matter how much you want there to be. As shown above, out of the four objective and inductive statements that can be made about morality, there is overwhelming evidence to support an inductive statement in my favour, and no evidence, and even massive counter evidence to support an inductive or deductive statement in your favour.

What prey tell is inductive deducement?? Induction deals with particulars to general conclusions, and deduction deals with generals to particular conclusions. No there is massive drivel that is stacked against a theistic worldview, which is the only way one can ground objective statements.

The only way even something can be intelligible is if there is a law that allows it to be, those are the laws of reason, first principles, like the law of identity which says A=A or being=being..something must necessarily be identical to itself, if it wasnt then it would be something else. The law of non contradiction states that A canot be non A, or something cannot be nothing. With just these two principles though there are more, you can apply these to ACTUAL reality and get not JUST what is logically false, BUT ALSO wat is ACTUALLY true. It is because you dont seem to ALLOW commonsense reason (not just logic) to be part of your view is why you seem to be going against your own views sometimes in the same breath.

It isn't "necessarily true" at all. It's actually, inductively, demonstrably false. Clearly you don't understand the nature of induction because you keep trying to draw deductive conclusions from inductive statements.

"I exist" is not inductively NOR deductively true, its also not LOGICALLY true, rather its REDUCTIVELY and RATIONALLY true because it is a statement that deals with actual reality and carries a necessity to it. You MUST ACTUALLY exist in order to deny that you exist. You don't get ACTUAL necessity with either induction or deduction. One must always question whether the premises are ACTUALLY true, and you dont get that from logic alone. I understand induction and deduction and I exist, I change, a Theistic God exists are not based in either. YoU CAN make arguments for them that are deductive or inductive (like the Kalaam Cosmological argument, arguing from the beginning of the universe to a beginner=God) but thats not how I choose to argue for God or any of those truth claims. I only try, when it comes to the more basic things, like existence, reason, God etc to use actual undeniability and self evidence, OTHERWISE theres room for doubt or error. If those arent established first then probabilities and degrees of certainty gained via induction and deduction seem a LOT less certain.

The statement "I exist" is immediately verifiable, where as "the car is in the garage" is not. The only way you can know if that statement is true is if you use deduction and induction as you go to the garage. I exist on the other hand is immediately knowable, is actually undeniable, and actually self evident. The way I know its self evident is if I ask or think about whether I exist, I catch myself existing while in the experiential process of asking whether I exist or not. The only way I could be in th expriential process of asking whether I actually exist is if I actually exist to be able to do so. Same goes with the undeniabillity factor. These tests for truth are NEITHER inductive nor deductive, theyre reductive (a combination of induction and deduction), and are known via direct experience and intuition.

You've tried to make this point many times. I guess I can just say it one final time: social structure grounds and dictates what is moral in that society as cement for that structure. Yes, we really do interpret rape as fucking evil, whoever does it, wherever they do it. Demonstrably and evidentially there are other cultures that do not.

How does social structure dictate anything? Is social structure a sentient being? If not how can it dictate anything? If a culture sees rape as ok, then on what basis do we as a society say that is wrong? That theyre wrong for thinking rape is evil?

What a melodramatic conclusion. I guess I'll just say it again: i believe rape is always wrong. It's evil. It weakens the bonds of my society and human relations within it. Clearly other cultures believe differently. I can't empathise with then, I'm afraid, but I can observe this fact.

You BELIEVE OR KNOW rape is always wrong? You have said BOTH its self refuting to deny objective morals AND it is not self refuting to deny objective morals, because you have denied them in this conversation. Which is it this time? If you BELIEVE rape is wrong, then wouldnt it follow that you could be wrong in your belief? If so then how can you say it is wrong everywhere? Also how can you say its REALLY evil, especially if another society sanctions it, if your view is that moral law is dependent on societies? Where do you go when two societies are in disagreement? On what basis do you adjudicate between the two if moral law doesnt transcend them?

I have conclusively demonstrated how your position is invalid based on the available empirical and historical evidence.

Uh no you havent. You have demonstrated how and where you contradict yourself, can only ground your arguments in opinions and subjectivity, cannot claim to KNOW rape is really wrong in itself, and provide NO basis for knowing anything for certain because you preface it with "as far as I know" etc..

Much like Xeno's paradox:

(A runner races against a tortoise and the tortoise has 10m head start)

1 - When the runner reaches the point where the tortoise was, the tortoise is further ahead and is at a new point.
2 - When the runner reaches this new point, the tortoise has moved forward some, as is at a new point.
3 - Therefore the runner can never overtake the tortoise

you're arguing abstract logic which is rendered false by empirical evidence. Logic is a machine that will grind out an answer that is consistent regardless of its propositions.

Zenos paradox only applies to abstract realities, not actual ones. You CAN put an infinite amount of dots between point a and b mathematically or logically but no matter how many ACTUAL books you put in between 2 ACTUAL books you will never and can never get an infinite amount between them. Logic and math deals with abstract reality, validity, consistency, and whether a conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, it doesnt tell you whether the premises are ACTUALLY true. On the other hand REASON deals with material truth about ACTUAL reality and is ultimately ground in reduction to first principles which correspond to ACTUAL reality. You are only seeming to delved into logic via induction and deduction pertaining to abstract and actual reality, where the actual can only render degrees of certainty, not absolute or actual necessity.. while completely ignoring their foundation in reduction to First Principles of REASON. I think if you look at arguments built on reason that gives actual necessity, absolute certainty regarding actual reality your views would be completely different.

For example

1 - All buildings are 10cm high
2 - All men are 1.7m tall
3 - All men are taller than buildings

Is a logically coherent statement. Because the propositions are false, however, it is irrational.

If you are claiming that no amount of evidence can change challenge your propositons about morality, you are begging the question.

No I'm not. There are somethings that are actually undeniable, necessary, and self evident. These cannot be disproven. While theyre not logicall airtight in that any one can conceive of any contrary states of affairs in their minds, they are ACTUALLY undeniable..ie they cannot be denied without affirming them as true in the very denial. I exist, I change, I can type/speak at least one word in english are some examples of self evident, actually undeniable truths that cannot be denied without being affirmed as true in the denial. While disprovabillity does apply to induction and deductive logic pertaining to when it applies to actual reality, it does not apply to foundational self evident truths that are actually undeniable.

Nope. I suggested that there might be discoverable optimum moral interpretations, just like there are ways to lay bricks to make them strongest. No certaity was implied, nothing about us "knowing them" was implied. You're trying to fit my statements into the Geisler machine (tm)! haha.

So basically yours saying nothing..youre just saying there are discoverable interpretations of morality people have claimed are true...right? Let me ask you this..Where does a social contract come from and how do we know whether a social contract is correct/true or moral?

Nope. I knew you'd spin it that way! Successful societies clearly have successful moral codes.

Successful according to who or what? That just begs the question.

No they weren't. And you're missing the point. Something is either moral within a society is not. You're relativism here is self-defeating. If rape is state sanctioned in societies then we have no business making statements like "no societies endorse rape."

You have no way to find out if any act is moral or immoral in itself, you have no basis for social contracts and there is no real authority to them if they are just made up or only exist in the mind. Social contracts are just as contentful and meaningful as preference when preference is used as a basis for what is right and wrong..ie nothing is REALLY right or wrong in itself, so you indirectly end up denying objective morality..all you seem to be doing is using a bunch of words to try to show how peoples moral interpretations that are presented as objective, or the interpretations which are themselves objectively presented are the same thing as objective morals..but you pulled the rug out from your own feet because you already admitted that claiming objective morals dont exist is self refuting.

 

[Dominick_7]

Christ said to love thy neighbour as yourself, love your enemeies and cast the first stone if you have no sin. All killing of another violates these rules, hence all killing is sinful in a christian sense, invalidating your above claims.

No contradiction at all, you're just misinterpreting the Bible. Christ commanded all INDIVIDUALS to love their enemies and do good to those who do evil to you, and in the casting stone passage it was dealing with mob rule with no due process. Many believe that may not even be part of the Bible but is scribal commentary since its found in no early manuscripts but regardless if she committed adultery she would have been stoned via due process, just not by mob rule.

The bible commands societies, the government, to CORPORATELY make judgments via due process to be allowed to execute the death penalty/capital punishment to those who are guilty of murder (unjust killing). While no INDIVIDUAL has a right to unjustly take anyone life for any reason, or take the law into their own hands via vengeance or vigilanti-ism if thats a word, the government has a God given right to execute justice and apply capital punishment/the death penalty upon those who are guilty of murder (see Gen 9:6, the many levitical laws where the death penalty is applied via the government, and Romans 13) You can see capital punishment from genesis all the way through the New Testament and that in no way contradicts itself or what I said. So again there is a difference between JUST killing (for food, self defense, defense of a neighbor from an unjust aggressor, just war theory, capital punishment etc), and UN-JUST killing (ie murder, genocide etc).

There is a wealth of evidence to show there is divergence from this. That you concede this at all by stating "generally" invalidates your core thesis.

I don't know what youre saying here. Could you clarify?

Again naieve. Many cultures see knowledge and wisdom as sinful Buddhism is founded on Buddhist logic, which to you would all be false and dishonest. I have already demonstrated how Xtian bravery is Viking cowardice. Marxist culture values pragma over faith.

Not to me, in itself its false. It is self refuting to say logic and reason dont exist and are part of maya or illusion, part of the err of mortal mind. Its OBJECTIVELY false, and deep down every pantheist knows this. Their views are both unthinkable and unlivable, if they did REALLY believe this they would do their finances this way but they dont. The bottom line is that there are objectively discoverable objective morals, not objective moral interpretations, and these apply to all sentient creatures, just like gravity applies to humans whether they like it or have differing interpretations of it. While the vikings had many things wrong in accord with their barbaric mentality and behavior, by and large most societies uphold basic moral laws, which demonstrate how people DO have a sense of what is right and wrong, and even those cultures who did heinous things like sacrifice children to their blood thirsty gods, they had some way to present it AS IF it was a good and noble thing which ALSO shows they had a conscience and had to find some way to rationalize their actions in order to by pass the moral pain theyd get for violating moral law.

I have provided evidence that there are different social interpretations of all the virtues and vices you have proposed universal so far.

My argument is NOT that ALL societies agree exactly on all moral laws, NOR that society is the BASIS of morality, my argument was that generally most societies agree on some basic central morals BECAUSE (this is the basis here) moral law is objective, something we know intuitively because we're all made in Gods image.

How can you say that moral law is objective AND that moral laws are only interpretation ie subjective? How can you say that because societies differ on particular moral laws that that means there are no moral laws? And what grounds the social contract? Societies? If so then how do we know if the moral contracts proposed are correct or objective? Heck where does it come from?

 

[Dominick_7]

Further weakening your case is that there is no valid evidence for theism, and a strong case to be made against all theistic arguments.

While I believe you properly stated the Kalaam argument which is a good argument I think you fail to understand the conclusions and also don't even acknowledge the BEST argument for Gods existence being Geislers Existentially Undeniable argument for the Existence of God, based on Aquinas' Five Ways, and basically the best of all previous arguments for God. Plantigas Ontological argument (which really is a cosmological argument is actually petty good as well though not as good as Norman Geislers).

1 - Given then that space and time are not infinite, an infinite being would have to exist outside of both. To posit "an" infinite being, then, is to spacialise what must exist outside of space. Furthermore "outside" is a spacial notion, as is "independently".

How is beyond space, ie not located within the dimensions of time and space, or 3 dimensions = to saying that must ALSO be a space and or time? This is like people saying that to say God exists "before" time began is to posit a "time before time" which is a contradiction. "Prior" and "before" as well as "outside" must be put in quotes in order to avoid misunderstanding because to say God is prior to time means that He is ONTOLOGICALLY prior to time, NOT that Hes CHRONOLOGICALLY prior to time. For God to be ONTOLOGICALLY prior to time is NOT to posit a time before time therefore it is not a contradiction. Likewise to say God must exist "beyond" space is not to say God exists POSITIONALLY or LOCATIONALLY "outside" of space but to say God exists ONTOLOGICALLY "beyond" or a better word being that God exists "distinct from" space, and time and matter. To say God is immaterial is NOT to say He exists as material beyond material, you must read this INTO the terms, and I'm kinda surprised someone with your intellect would try this move. Immaterial doesn't mean material, it means NOT material.

2 - An infinite being cannot be divided and therefore must lack nothing. Because theism holds that pantheism is false, the infinite being must lack the attributes of this physical universe. Therefore the concept of an infinite being is self-refuting.

What? You are just not understanding how Theism defines terms. Theism claims that God is infinite, thus has no limitations WITH QUALIFICATION. For him to exist within time and space would mean He is limited by the dimensions of time and space, since He cannot be limited by anything beyond Himself, He cannot exist in time and space. If God WAS physical He would be limited. To say He doesnt have physicality means He LACKS physicality is to say that because God isnt limited by physicality that means Hes limited in some meaningful sense doesnt follow. God is limited to being unlimited, He is not limited to being limited. YOu are basically saying that unless God is limited He cannot be unlimited..which is nonsense. Limitation is NOT UNlimitation, but your definition equates the two as being the same thing or makes unlimitation be dependent on limitation, which is also nonsense. Again for God to be physical IS to be limited, so if He is not physical this means He is not physically limited. I think you are basically playing semantics to somehow try to make God being limited from having limitation ALSO mean He is limited. God being limited from having limitations is meaningful, but youre suggesting God MUST ALSO have limitations in order to truly be unlimited is a contradiction, thus is meaningless.

3 - Something "outside" of space and time cannot interact with things in space and time unless it enters space time. To enter something is a spacial concept (you come from outside), hence talk of god interacting/entering space time is contradictory.

This just makes no sense either. Says who?? Why does one have to enter the space or location another is in IN ORDER to communicate with them? I am communicating with you via the internet, does that require that I be where you are in order to do this? No. God can effect things IN time without having to be in time to do so, just like I can effect you without having to be in your vicinity. God communicates to us AND can and does remain distinct from us. Communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the one being communicated with, communication does in no way mean that they become the same, or become the same nature if thre is correspondence between the two. The two remain two, and always remain two distinct ontological beings even THOUGH they may communicate to each other. So just because God can produce as effect in time, or communicate with finite creatures, that in no way necessitates God has become a finite creature, becomes spacial, or takes on a contingent nature within His necessary nature. Now can God take on an additional nature being contingent? Yes, I dont see any contradiction in that, and He HAS done so, which we celebrate during christmas. This is the only way God could perfectly relate to us, by taking on an additional nature, a human nature, so He could truly experience being a human in some sense, minus committing evil. Either way God by nature, via His necessary nature, can and does interact with humans without having to enter time and space. Since He is unlimited, theres nothing keeping him from being able to do so, including your self made definitions based purely on semantics. You are reading contingency into terms where perhaps JUST BECAUSE they may imply contingency for us to do, because were contingent, they dont necessarily imply contingency for a necessary being. IE just because our thinking is limited and contingent because were contingent that doesnt mean a necessary being thinks in a limited or contingent way. Rather the only way a necessary being can think is in accord with His necessary unlimited nature.

4 - In order to create space and time God would have to cause causality. This is impossible, since causing causality already presupposes causality. If you try to argue that god simultaneously caused causality then it is not possible to distinguish whether causality caused god or god caused causality and trying to determine this presupposes causality. Hence even if we grant his existence, god is contingent and not necessary and the cosmological argument and argument from contingency fail.

When He created the world He didnt CREATE causality, what He did was used causality to create the world, ie effected the universe..He didnt effect effectness, rather He effected the world into existence. You again are reading some sort of inordinate contingency into causality that is not necessary and doesnt apply. How does God causing the universe to be = something must have caused God?? Even if God caused another universe, are you saying because He already caused one universe that means He cant cause another or must be contingent? I don't get what youre getting at. What is causing causality and how does that mean the causor is contingent? For God to effect the universe into continued being He actualized the potential for the universe to exist. That is God brought the possibility for the universe from potentiality into actuality. PErhaps you can say God actualized the law of causality when He caused the universe, because perhaps nothing else had been caused apart from that occurring, but I dont see how actualizing the law of causality means God is contingent.

While God can actualize things that have potential, like us and the universe, something that has no potential or cannot be possible, cannot be actualized. Since God is pure actuality and no potential at all, He cannot be actualized and nothing within Him can be actualized. Potential is limiting and that is not something God can have being that He is necessary by nature.

 

[Dominick_7]

I don't agree with this. When you're a child you have no inherent sense of morality. We adopt a sense of right and wrong based on social conditioning and parenting. It's not something that is already conceived inside us.

I disagree. While we may not be developed enough to realize moral law or recognize it, we still have the innate capability even though we arent developed enough to recognize or use it. You have legs at birth, most do at least, and inherent in legs is the ability to use them for walking or crawling..while you may not be strong enough to use them for walking, you can move them around even if you aren't developed enough to use them towards the end of walking just yet. Not being able to use something in its fullest extent or recognize something doesnt mean that ability isn't inherent, natural, or a real inherent potential. While parents HELP us with understanding what is right and wrong, and we do learn this in our interactions when were developed enough to do so, it isnt as if its an out of nothing experience, we have a real natural capacity to know the right, but the older we get, and the more we learn, we develop that ability to recognize it and use our moral faculty. Parents and society helps us to develop using that real capacity we have, my point is that God gave us that capacity being made in His image, and its parents job to teach their children about God and how moral law is objective and not some sort of concoction that doesn't really or objective apply to reality.

Cultures impose different rituals and customs based on what characteristics ("virtues") they value more. The Vikings valued theft and conquest. These values are often frowned upon today. However, this doesn't make one moral system flawed. Cultures conceive of very different spiritual and societal systems, but none of them can be said to be incorrect. The ancient Romans had slaves, but it never crossed their minds that what they were doing was wrong. You cannot label certain actions as "evil," no matter how much you disagree with them.

I agree cultures do do that but because morality IS objective this is how you can know which moral or legal systems are incorrect, false, or flawed. Reason works the same way. You cannot know anything unless it comes THROUGH the sense, but you dont know anything BY the senses, rather you know things via the mind..yet nothing is in the mind unless it comes through the sense, EXCEPT ones capacity to know. Men and women in order for them to be able to know anything they must have an innate capacity to know things external to them as well as sense through which to access things in the world. Without either knowing would be impossible. Tabula rasa is incorect because if reality wrote itself on your mind, but it had no way to distinguish it from the mind itself, knowing would be impossible..it would be like taking a white piece of chalk and writing on a white wall..you wouldnt be able to see or recognize it. The way in which you would be able to recognize it is if the white chalk was used on a black chalk board, because in that case there would be an inherent way to distinguish between the writing from the board, but that implies a capacity to be able to distinguish and recognize which must exist in the case of the chalk board and the mind. People also don't have innate ideas. Examples of a slave boy knowing advanced math is not a good example because he could have easily seen the teacher teach it or seen his books or drawings. You cant know a particular object like a pyramid unless you have access to it via the senses. So both rationalists and empiricists are incorrect. It must be a combination of both the capacity of the mind and the senses in order to know. This exact example applies to morality for unless we have an innate natural capacity to know what is right AND the senses through which to receive data, you wouldn't be able to learn to recognize he good or actualize that natural capacity you have to recognize the good.

Like he said its self refuting to say one ought never use oughts, or to say there is no objective moral law. Since we know moral law exists objectively and undeniably, since one cant get away from it without using it, to know this means we must have a capacity to know it which neither society or our parents gave us. Its already there naturally, we just may need some help using it, much like our legs.

 

[Dominick_7]

No. It's that ths societal scaffold makes it possible for a person to have any concerns whatsoever outside of "will that guy murder me?" "will that guy rape me?" This is a founding strategy of society: what is personally undesireable (e.g. in the west: rape, murder) and therefore preventative of people living together is grounded in a societal moral code and becomes engraved in people's consciences. This societal moral conscience is 1 - grounded, 2 - supported overwhelmingly by historical and empirical data and 3 - able to legislate what phenomena are good and what phenomena are evil. All grounded in the evolving structure of a society.

So basically youre saying there are no objective morals, there are only objectively presented interpretations of morals? Does one have to consult this "moral scaffolding" to know what hurts them?

Over time some moral laws become discarded and replaced with others. For example, the Bible provides instructions on how to keep slaves, and to ensure slave relationships are as voluntary as possible on the part of the slave. We have come to see all guises of slavery as immoral. This is good evidence that we get our morals from an evolving societal conscience.

The Bible has always taught that coercive slavery is wrong. Slavery in the Bible has 3 types- 1) Coersive which it says is wrong 2) Working contract which is basically a job 3) Slavery to sin which it also says is wrong. By and large most of the slavery talked about in the Bible is one of a working contract and is not the kind one sees in say the african slavery in the US. Slavery was always a part of society and was largely seen as normal EXCEPT when it came to Christian/Judaic Theism. This is why you have Wilberforce and other Christian leaders being on the forefront of having made human trafficing/coersive (abusive) slavery being made illegal.

The way the Israelities became slaves of Egypt is during the time of Joseph you had them being poor and having famines, and they freely pledged themselves to Egypt to become their workers in exchange for them being taken care of by Egypt under Josephs care. After Joseph died they had an abusive pharaoh in place who didnt know about Joseph and turned the more so working contract into an abusive form of slavery, and this is what God through Moses delivered them from.

 

[Dominick_7]

^ what an evasive crock of shit

What is evasive? Is there anything else you can add to the discussion? Whatever it is you think is wrong in it in particular?

 

[Dominick_7]

good job fighting off the "its all Gods fault" part. Early in this topic I was stunned to find those that could not grasp evolution of the brain. Even more so the strong influence and peer pressure that tuff guys or bullies have had on meeker humans over the centuries. There are far more followers than leaders, so if the leaders say go rape and pillage, it insites primitive rabble mentality rather than human self evaluation of a given situation. Mankind was exposed to this from the beginning, whether it was Mosses or any other "Kings", heads of the church, current street gang mentality, the list could be endless. Yet I venture to believe that some men would have a tiny spark in their heads that thought "that aint right". These moments of hesitation from ancient barbaric brainwashing have evolved into a stronger influence, combined with the ability to think for ones self in modern times have created a more thoughtful human race.

I find it funny to hear Darwinists talk about how things are getting better and were becoming more intelligent. Have you ever seen letters from say soldiers in the Civil War and then compared them to the writings from people todayt say in Youtube, or from most students in different schools of today? Or seen discussions from education leaders in how we should lower the standards of english and literacy even more to allow typos almost ebonics and the like to be allowed and considered ok.

Survival, territory, vengence will always be innate in humans but with our advanced view of things... these in themselves will restrain some from stepping on other peoples toes. Greed, jelousy and self gratification are the flaws by which mankind perpetuates his suffering

Why are greed, jealousy, and self gratification flaws? Whats wrong with them and why?