Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

[Tassman]

Not as disgraceful as defending a woman's "right" to have her own child killed.

[JonathanL]

Far more disgraceful!

You don't have any sort of basis to make a judgment like that.

Again, you do not have any sort of sufficient basis to make such a statement.

There's no reason which you accept, you mean.

Again, these are all judgements of morality which you're making for which there is no rational basis. You do not have a logical reason for why I ought not to "impose my views" on anyone else, and too boot you're a huge hypocrite, because when defending a woman's right to have her children aborted you're doing the exact same thing. The same goes for me adding to the distress of a woman contemplating abortion. If I am not entitled to argue for abortion being a huge moral wrong, then you are not entitled to argue that she should be allowed to go through with it either.

Who are you to judge others?

Manufactured outrage is even more pitiful than usual when it's coming from someone as morally bankrupt as you.

[Tassman]

<snipped>

If I am not entitled to argue for abortion being a huge moral wrong, then you are not entitled to argue that she should be allowed to go through with it either.

[JonathanL]

I see you conveniently decided to ignore the parts where I challenged you to give logical support for the manufactured outrage you're displaying over the moral judgements I'm making, but of course you're not going to do that, because it will reveal the very same thing that you accuse me of, namely basing your views on unevidenced fantasies which you've come up with in your own imagination. You're the worst kind of hypocrite imaginable. You act like you're doing this out of concern of the rights of women, but the very words you write expose you as someone who's in this fight because he has a rabid hatred for Christianity and all that it stands for, as opposed to someone who has a genuine concern over the rights of the women that he's supposedly fighting for.

[Starlight]

And this is where you make an unjustified conclusion. Valuing another person does not in and of itself give rise to any sort of obligation or "oughts" to act in a beneficial manner towards that person.

There are different kinds of "oughts", but I am saying oughts first arise naturally due to goal-based-rationality.

If I have a goal of achieving X, and there are different possible actions I could take which have various outcomes, then I can evaluate in my mind which or them are more or less likely to achieve X, then being a rational person I ought to take the one that has the greatest likelihood of achieving X. Being rational and sane involves selecting the action that best achieves your goals. If you are cold and value warmth, then you "ought" to put on more clothes or turn on a heater etc. Ought here is being used in the sense of "the sensible action to take to achieve your goal".

If I value others, then it follows that I ought to act in certain ways to best achieve that goal. If I want to harm and destroy others, then it follows that I ought to act in certain ways to best achieve that goal.

At most it makes you more inclined to act in a way that is beneficial towards said person, but it does not in any way, shape or form create some sort of obligation to do so.

I think you're confusing yourself by using language of "obligation" too soon in the process of constructing morality. My "obligation", such as it is at this point in the argument, is to myself to act consistently with my values. It would be irrational for me to have values (eg valuing myself, valuing my friends etc) but not act in ways consistent with those values.

As far as I can see you're making an argument similar to this:

1. Valuing someone positively entails wishing for their happiness and wellbeing.

2. Wishing for someone's happiness and wellbeing entails an obligation to act in a way that is beneficial to their happiness and wellbeing.

3. Therefore if I attribute a positive value to a person I ought to act in a way that is beneficial to their happiness and wellbeing.

Swap premises 2 and 3. Premise 1 directly implies premise 3, because any sane and rational person will act in a way consistent with their values. Not doing so would be very strange and irrational. It would amount to wanting something, being given the opportunity to make the thing you want happen, and then choosing not to make it happen. That's where the "ought" language comes in above - if you want something then given the opportunity you "ought" to make the think you want happen, because that's how sane and rational people act.

So start from premise 1, then premise 3 follows. In this way, you can construct quite a number of things you "ought" to do, due to valuing others. These comprise the set of moral obligations. Premise 2 thus follows from premise 3.

it does not adequately explain why we have any obligation to value another person positively, rather than negatively, in the first place.

I agree that I didn't even begin to discuss that subject in my post, which is quite a complex and multifaceted topic. It amounts to the question of "what motivates human beings to value other human beings" and involves a lot of psychological, social and cultural factors. That's a complex subject I don't propose to go into. It is equivalent to the question of "why would I even want to be moral in the first place?" in theistic morality, which also has a complex answer. What I outlined for you was how the moral framework itself arises, not your motivations for wanting to be moral.

I showed how a framework for measuring human interactions naturally arises from the positive or negative values that conscious beings can place on each other, and the resultant positive or negative intentions that rational beings can have when they act toward each other. And explained that this framework is important to everyone who evaluates social interactions. And explained that most atheists tend to refer to this framework as "morality" and that moral words such as "good"/"evil" "right"/"wrong" etc naturally fit very well into this framework.

This "natural morality", atleast as you describe it, exists nowhere else but your own imagination.

Well I'd say everyone uses it in all cultures to evaluate nearly every single social interaction, whether consciously or subconsciously, as whenever we observe an action our brains naturally instantly start making inferences about the motivations behind the action. The only real question is whether it is worth labeling this naturally arising measure of social interactions as "morality" or not. Most atheists label it morality, and hence have a moral system that they are largely unanimous on. They regularly use it to evaluate religious teachings and find them morally wanting.

At most our parents/family, society and the religion we belong to can shape our conscience, but they are not themselves the ultimate explanation for why we have a conscience in the first place.

Well any atheist would say the ultimate explanation for why we have a conscience lies in evolution. Humans are a social species, so evolution has gifted us with a variety of psychological inclinations to value other humans around us, and feel guilt when we do something to hurt them or do something that is out of keeping with the will of the herd.

[Tassman]

I see you conveniently decided to ignore the parts where I challenged you to give logical support for the manufactured outrage you're displaying over the moral judgements I'm making, but of course you're not going to do that, because it will reveal the very same thing that you accuse me of, namely basing your views on unevidenced fantasies which you've come up with in your own imagination. You're the worst kind of hypocrite imaginable. You act like you're doing this out of concern of the rights of women, but the very words you write expose you as someone who's in this fight because he has a rabid hatred for Christianity and all that it stands for, as opposed to someone who has a genuine concern over the rights of the women that he's supposedly fighting for.

[JonathanL]

Persecuted Christian nonsense? I never said anything about persecution. Someone like you who's all bark and no bite couldn't persecute anyone in the first place.

[JonathanL]

There are different kinds of "oughts", but I am saying oughts first arise naturally due to goal-based-rationality.

If I have a goal of achieving X, and there are different possible actions I could take which have various outcomes, then I can evaluate in my mind which or them are more or less likely to achieve X, then being a rational person I ought to take the one that has the greatest likelihood of achieving X. Being rational and sane involves selecting the action that best achieves your goals. If you are cold and value warmth, then you "ought" to put on more clothes or turn on a heater etc. Ought here is being used in the sense of "the sensible action to take to achieve your goal".

If I value others, then it follows that I ought to act in certain ways to best achieve that goal. If I want to harm and destroy others, then it follows that I ought to act in certain ways to best achieve that goal.

But that is a rational "ought" which is not the same as a moral "ought" and it is therefore not a morally binding ought. A moral ought can give rise to a rational ought, but I see no reason why a rational ought can give rise to a moral ought.

I think you're confusing yourself by using language of "obligation" too soon in the process of constructing morality. My "obligation", such as it is at this point in the argument, is to myself to act consistently with my values. It would be irrational for me to have values (eg valuing myself, valuing my friends etc) but not act in ways consistent with those values.

IMO obligations are one of the more fundamental building blocks of any consistent framework of morality.

Swap premises 2 and 3. Premise 1 directly implies premise 3, because any sane and rational person will act in a way consistent with their values. Not doing so would be very strange and irrational. It would amount to wanting something, being given the opportunity to make the thing you want happen, and then choosing not to make it happen. That's where the "ought" language comes in above - if you want something then given the opportunity you "ought" to make the think you want happen, because that's how sane and rational people act.

So start from premise 1, then premise 3 follows. In this way, you can construct quite a number of things you "ought" to do, due to valuing others. These comprise the set of moral obligations. Premise 2 thus follows from premise 3.

Well, I can swap them if you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you've yet to give any rational support for premise 3. You can argue that any sane and rational person will act in accordance to their values, but that's just the same rational "ought" which you described above, and not the moral "ought" which is relevant in a discussion of morality.

I agree that I didn't even begin to discuss that subject in my post, which is quite a complex and multifaceted topic. It amounts to the question of "what motivates human beings to value other human beings" and involves a lot of psychological, social and cultural factors. That's a complex subject I don't propose to go into. It is equivalent to the question of "why would I even want to be moral in the first place?" in theistic morality, which also has a complex answer. What I outlined for you was how the moral framework itself arises, not your motivations for wanting to be moral.

I showed how a framework for measuring human interactions naturally arises from the positive or negative values that conscious beings can place on each other, and the resultant positive or negative intentions that rational beings can have when they act toward each other. And explained that this framework is important to everyone who evaluates social interactions. And explained that most atheists tend to refer to this framework as "morality" and that moral words such as "good"/"evil" "right"/"wrong" etc naturally fit very well into this framework.

They really don't. I mean, you can call things "good" and "evil" or certain acts "right" or "wrong" within the framework you've set up, but these words imply a set of moral value judgements and moral obligations that your framework fails to account for.

Well I'd say everyone uses it in all cultures to evaluate nearly every single social interaction, whether consciously or subconsciously, as whenever we observe an action our brains naturally instantly start making inferences about the motivations behind the action. The only real question is whether it is worth labeling this naturally arising measure of social interactions as "morality" or not. Most atheists label it morality, and hence have a moral system that they are largely unanimous on. They regularly use it to evaluate religious teachings and find them morally wanting.

The problem ISTM, is that instead of recognizing that making value judgements and judging the motivations behind an action is part of a much bigger framework of morality, you seem to be basing the whole moral framework on facets that the framework is supposed to explain, rather than being explained by them.

Well any atheist would say the ultimate explanation for why we have a conscience lies in evolution. Humans are a social species, so evolution has gifted us with a variety of psychological inclinations to value other humans around us, and feel guilt when we do something to hurt them or do something that is out of keeping with the will of the herd.

And any TE would say that the ultimate explanation for why a conscience arose from the process of evolution is because God set things in motion so that it would happen.

[JonathanL]

Even if my arguments were based on a fantasy it does not therefore follow that I am not entitled to argue for my standpoint, or to try to convince someone not to go through with an abortion. You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue of me not being "entitled to subject a woman contemplating an abortion to harassment () based upon this belief", because if you did you would have given support for this statement a long time ago.

[lilpixieofterror]

This thread has gone nearly 40 pages, with the pro-life people essentially saying "Science says fetuses are human beings!" over and over and over again in different ways.

Meanwhile everyone else has been responding with variations on "yes, we already knew that. We don't consider it relevant. For other reasons we think it's okay to kill them."

And then the response is: "But they're human beings!!!"

Honestly most 4 year olds would be smarter than the pro-life people in this thread are acting. There's an obsession with the idea that fetuses are human. Of course they are human. Did you guys not previously realize that or something? Wailing "but they're human beings" at the rest of us is no more helpful than standing outside a military base telling the soldiers going in and out that in war human beings get killed... they already know.

Translation: I want it legal to kill people for selfish reasons and could care less if they are living humans or not.

Isn't that much more honest than pretending you're a moral person?

[Sparko]

tassman you were not allowed back in and I have reported you. everyone else, I asked that the abortion argument be dropped.

here is another area where many liberals ignore science: GMO foods.

[mossrose]

Well I've been allowed back, lucky you.

What you "repeated over and over"aloneNOT by science alone. This is the point you refuse to grasp.

Moderator Notice

You are wrong, you were not allowed back in permanently, all your posts following Sparko's request will be deleted, and you will be moderated.

Now, get out and stay out of this thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[ke7ejx]

Well I've been allowed back, lucky you.

What you "repeated over and over"aloneNOT by science alone. This is the point you refuse to grasp.

I suggest you back off right now, Tassman. The ice upon which you skate is very thin.

[ke7ejx]

tassman you were not allowed back in and I have reported you. everyone else, I asked that the abortion argument be dropped.

here is another area where many liberals ignore science: GMO foods.

GMO, as in preservatives, Sparkles?

[Cow Poke]

GMO, as in preservatives, Sparkles?

Worse! Genetically Modified!

Frankefruit and Frankenveggies and Frankenmeat!