Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   -Moral Standard In All of Humanity-
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 46 of 72 (378853)
01-22-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by anastasia
01-21-2007 11:19 PM


Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Indifferent
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by anastasia, posted 01-21-2007 11:19 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 47 of 72 (378864)
01-22-2007 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by anastasia
01-21-2007 11:19 PM


Morality evolved
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by anastasia, posted 01-21-2007 11:19 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2007 7:37 AM Doddy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 72 (378875)
01-22-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Doddy
01-22-2007 3:37 AM


Re: Morality evolved
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.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Doddy, posted 01-22-2007 3:37 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Doddy, posted 01-22-2007 8:07 AM RAZD has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 49 of 72 (378879)
01-22-2007 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
01-22-2007 7:37 AM


Re: Morality evolved
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2007 7:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2007 7:49 PM Doddy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 72 (378894)
01-22-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
01-22-2007 12:31 AM


Don't check your brain at the door.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 01-22-2007 12:31 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 01-22-2007 11:52 AM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 51 of 72 (378912)
01-22-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
01-22-2007 10:39 AM


Re: Don't check your brain at the door.
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:
Why do you want to insist on claiming you "Know" something that you only believe?
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!
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 01-22-2007 10:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 01-22-2007 12:16 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 54 by tsig, posted 01-24-2007 12:13 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 72 (378917)
01-22-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
01-22-2007 11:52 AM


Re: Don't check your brain at the door.
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.
  • at the time I was born the probability of being born other than from a woman was near zero.
  • I have photographs of my mother that others can see and examine.
  • I can check with others who also met my mother.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 01-22-2007 11:52 AM Phat has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 72 (379071)
01-22-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Doddy
01-22-2007 8:07 AM


Re: Morality evolved
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

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Doddy, posted 01-22-2007 8:07 AM Doddy has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 54 of 72 (379403)
01-24-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
01-22-2007 11:52 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 01-22-2007 11:52 AM Phat has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 72 (379537)
01-24-2007 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by kuresu
01-21-2007 1:27 AM


Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Indifferent
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by kuresu, posted 01-21-2007 1:27 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by kuresu, posted 01-24-2007 3:58 PM joshua221 has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 72 (379546)
01-24-2007 3:30 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 6:02 PM joshua221 has replied
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 01-29-2007 3:56 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 57 of 72 (379552)
01-24-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by joshua221
01-24-2007 3:10 PM


Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Indifferent
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 3:10 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 5:08 PM kuresu has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 72 (379566)
01-24-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by kuresu
01-24-2007 3:58 PM


Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Indifferent
quote:
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 can't understand it I think.
quote:
you also come of as immature and ignorant at times--and I know you're young to begin with.
Oh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by kuresu, posted 01-24-2007 3:58 PM kuresu has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 72 (379576)
01-24-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by joshua221
01-24-2007 3:30 PM


Why?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 3:30 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-24-2007 6:24 PM jar has replied
 Message 62 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 7:43 PM jar has replied
 Message 63 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 7:44 PM jar has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 60 of 72 (379578)
01-24-2007 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-24-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Why?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 6:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 6:33 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024