|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: -Moral Standard In All of Humanity- | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
the golden rectangle leads to some very beautiful buildings. but some can't stand the order inherent in them.
as to your study: i don't know about that one. what I do know is that while beauty (or determining what is beautiful), is subjective, there do appear to be bounds that everybody follows. i may find one girl to be drop dead gorgeous, and another guy she'll be "meh". but, both views are determined within a set. (unless I've screwed this up. the day we went over this in my philosophy class last year was quite interesting, and the movie, well . . .interesting). as far as beauty in humans go, it all seems to be pretty much geared toward finding a good mate. and there are rules in that game. i've probably screwed this up. now then, what was the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Apparently not so. A recent study has shown that infants recognize and draw towards more attractive faces. Obviously this study is flawed. The scientists themselves must be biased to determine who is attractive in the first place, right? How do they possibly know that the baby is choosing the 'hottie' without a standard for beauty? How can they possibly pick a 'beautiful' face for the line-up without revealing their own bias. Is there a standard for beauty?Or...is it all subjective and changing with a culture? Hm. Seems pretty obvious. The standard of beauty changes, therefore flawed study. On the other hand, there might be a standard of some basic requirements like regularity of feature? I think you will find that much of our concept of beauty is not culturally determined, but is ingrained within our brain by evolution. While there are small variations (such as hair colour or style, and skin tone), the concept of what is beautiful is very similar for all cultures. That is exactly what this study has shown - that, regardless of what 'objective beauty' is, both infants and adults have similar views on it, thus suggesting there is a genetic component. I assert the same about morality. A society where it is right to kill infants is not going to be selected for, but one where it is wrong to pass up the opportunity to help another will do well. This also explains why we have so much trouble determining whether medical treatments such as stem cell therapy, cloning and genetic modification - those are things which we haven't been exposed to before, so couldn't have been selected for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A society where it is right to kill infants is not going to be selected for, False. Any group that produces more babies than it needs will have enough to pass on the genes whether it kills some or some of the surplus die from other causes (especially ones eliminated by modern medicine) Infanticide has been practiced down through the ages, and has not stopped either the cultures of the time or the progress of human population to cover the globe. A group that produces too many young for parents to take care of will have sickly and malnourished children. When this happens in nature parents decide which child gets fed - better to have one survive than none. This behavior has been selected for ... Babies that have parents that want them will have better provisions for their future and will be better able to survive. Don't misuse evolution to support your belief on what is moral -- evolution isn't moral or immoral it just picks what works. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
False. Any group that produces more babies than it needs will have enough to pass on the genes whether it kills some or some of the surplus die from other causes (especially ones eliminated by modern medicine) Very true. I should have used another example.
Don't misuse evolution to support your belief on what is moral -- evolution isn't moral or immoral it just picks what works. I merely asserted that much of morality evolved and is genetic, rather than cultural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Who specifically is "you folk"? Do you see no individuality in the context of what I say versus what you have read from others? Chick Tracts are not a primary source of reference for me. No, not much. When you bring up silly old arguments like this one it only tells me you have not thought the issue through. Now if you reread the answers to the questions I asked you will see that you agree that it is possible to get independent confirmation of all the issues you raised. When I asked though "Can I get independent confirmation of God's existence?", you simply started playing the old shell game. You replied:
Independent of what? That is the classic response I would expect for those raised in the Non-Thinking Christian Churches, the Cult of Ignorance Churches. I doubt that you even noticed what you were doing. Look again at the questions I asked. They were in the exact same format as the last question. You had no problem understanding the word "independent" in any of the prior questions, but when I place God in the sentence you shut your brain down. Does the question makes you uncomfortable? Why don't you want to ask if you can get independent confirmation of God's existence? Why do you want to insist on claiming you "Know" something that you only believe? This might at first seem off topic, however it goes directly back to the question. Folk claim they Know God and so they Know some Moral Standard exists. Well, they are all wrong. They are as wrong as if they claimed 2 + 2 = 5. They are wrong NOT because the answers are difficult but because they refuse to even ask the Questions. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You may be right in that I shut my brain down when it comes to Faith.
I can see where absolute standards of God are what I believe that exist rather than that I know that I know for sure. Jar writes: Because my relationship with God is quite personal. This I know. Or I believe. I believe that I experienced a profound change when I got saved. I then think (or believe) but do not know that I can recognize God-morality better than I could before. I could be delusional, however! Why do you want to insist on claiming you "Know" something that you only believe? Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Read what you actually write.
Because my relationship with God is quite personal. This I know. Or I believe. Huh? You know or you believe? What does that have to do with what I asked? Knowing that your relationship with someone is personal is entirely different than knowing that the person exists. I know that my relationship with my mother was very personal. That would be true regardless of whether or not she really existed. I can though "Know" that my mother existed. There are several reasons.
While there is always the possibility that the person claiming to be my mother was NOT actually my mother, I could through DNA testing verify even that. But no such tests can be performed on GOD.
I believe that I experienced a profound change when I got saved. I then think (or believe) but do not know that I can recognize God-morality better than I could before. Again covering all bases? You believe? Or do you know? God-morality? What is that? Is it sold by the pound, the liter, the gallon? Is it measured in feet or inches?
I could be delusional, however! Or wrong. Or confusing some internal musings with an external reality, or only understand part of what happened. There are many possible explanations. But what does "when I got saved" mean? Are you saved? Saved from what? How exactly have you been changed? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I merely asserted that much of morality evolved and is genetic, rather than cultural. I can agree that SOME is genetic and selected -- the fact that we are a community species shapes the way we feel about being in a community. I would expect tigers to have a rather different moral basis for behavior re killing and respecting others - if we could communicate with them. But we also have and evolved and selected behavior component - behavior that is taught and passed on that is beneficial to the community and therefor selected as well (what Dawkin's calls "memes"). We can see examples of selected behavior in other animals, particularly in the way that they learn to obtain food from their {mothers\elders}. This is part of the problem for releasing zoo animals into the wild: they don't have the learned survival skills in spite of their genetics. Again, this selected behavior is what has worked in the past to the benefit of the species for reproduction or survival. Religious cohesion could well be one of these factors. It would allow larger groups to interact, with all the non-religious groups being eliminated by the religious wars (leaving us now with wars between religious groups). The question is whether we can evolve a behavior mode that supersedes the religious ones. That comes down to showing that the moralities of the various religions are different and similar. Showing that where they are similar is NOT because religion {X} or {Y} had the answer right on the multiple guess test, but that there are compelling logical reasons for those standards -- for a community species to adopt (and obviously the differences are less consequential - if not irrelevant - to the whole community of humans). Where do genes leave of and behavior mechanisms take over is not yet well defined. Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Hi Phat
Because my relationship with God is quite personal. This I know. Or I believe. I believe that I experienced a profound change when I got saved. I then think (or believe) but do not know that I can recognize God-morality better than I could before. I could be delusional, however Many people experience a profound change when they join the military so I don't see that your experience is even unique to religion. Edited by ts, : add quotes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
nevermind. deleted it as it is outlined below
why'd you call me kiddo Edited by prophex, : No reason given. Edited by prophex, : No reason given. Edited by prophex, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Alright guys.
What I have said remains it seems as a dying explanation for life and philosophy. Of course it seems that what is "perfect" or "absolute" is only described in books by men who spent their lives on these concepts such as Plato. Plato tried to present the answer to "What is Justice", although there are many things in his great work that I can discuss and debate with my peers, I feel that his effort was so amazing because his answer is the best explanation ever written to this day. Books such as these (the books that really matter) all accept the ideas of objective absolutes existing. For there is no reason to think or question or wonder without acknowledging, striving, or seeking these absolutes. It seems as if humanity has a problem as we cannot be perfect but can only provide the best answers that we can. But there is so much brilliance in this search. There is so much godliness in it. I want to know that everyone acknowledges the existence of these absolutes. You see, as jar was trying to point out - Many have written works with acceptance of these absolutes of course, but none could perfectly describe them and define them. For that I may admit is entirely implausible. The point of this thread is that for one to think, and think of things that matter in life, one must accept the existence of these absolutes and seek to define them. The cliche is to "seek the truth", but that is exactly what thinkers do, what philosophers do. This is philosophy. Thank you very much for your responses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
for thinking that what you listed as being "objective" or "absolutes",
when they aren't, and taking a good look at them reveals the truth of their subjectivity and relativity. you also come of as immature and ignorant at times--and I know you're young to begin with. besides, its one of those phrases, like "its raining cats and dogs".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: You can't understand it I think.
quote: Oh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The point of this thread is that for one to think, and think of things that matter in life, one must accept the existence of these absolutes and seek to define them. Why? Why limit yourself to simply the Absolute? I doubt you have ever really been in nature but I can tell you from experience that it is an something one never forgets. Take a few weeks off and hike part of the Appalachian Trail. When you actually get into a forest (and most Americans have never been there) ABSOLUTE is about 10 yards in front of you, about three yards on each side. Absolute is the next step, how to get around THIS fall, am I still on the trail? In the end though it does come down to doing. Thinking about hiking the AT is not hiking the AT.
The cliche is to "seek the truth", but that is exactly what thinkers do, what philosophers do. This is philosophy. Thinkers are okay, but they are pretty much useless. It is fine to think about hiking the Trail, or think about Justice, but in the end it comes down as always to doing. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
jar: Absolute is the next step, how to get around THIS fall, am I still on the trail? In the end though it does come down to doing. Thinking about hiking the AT is not hiking the AT. Does AT here stand for 'Appalachian Trail' or 'Absolute Truth'? Archer All species are transitional.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024