Are You A Good Man....

[seer]

because I care about altruism I study topics relating to improving people's lives and improving society in detail.

Like improving the lives of babies when you put them down? Star you do realize that you have no moral credibility on this issue - right.

The moral of your silly story seems to be that we should do what works.

Except with theism you can have a teleology for humankind, the way men ought to be. God could have a design for human morality, nature has no such design. What makes you happy, may not necessarily make the Maoist happy.

[Starlight]

How many times have you told us that altruism was at the core of your moral principles?

It feels like about 1000. It never seems to penetrate your thick skull though.

Yet, that principle allows for the killing of children, both born and unborn.

Any moral philosophy has two things: 1. What the moral principles are, 2. What they apply to.
Can you, for example, be moral toward a rock? Or a plant? Or an insect? Or a monkey? Or an alien? Or a human fetus? Or an adult human?

While there has been a general consensus throughout human history and culture that altruism is a crucial thing that needs to be measured and often called "morality", there has never been a strong consensus about precisely who or what it should be applied to. Many cultures in history thought it was only good to be altruistic towards your own tribe, and that you should do nothing for other tribes or even kill them. Many people today, myself included, think we should extend altruism not merely to those in our own society but to all other peoples in other countries on earth, and furthermore to the more intelligent animals also.

A major and scientifically-measurable difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" in the present is precisely with regard to how far this circle of moral concern ought to be expanded: Conservatives tend to favor what is called "ingroup-outgroup" mentality or "tribalism" which is the historical tribal idea of loyalty and altruism to one's own society but no obligations to peoples in other societies; Whereas liberals greatly extend their circle of moral concern to all peoples and say all are deserving of our kindness and love.

But even within both conservative and liberal circles the precise definition of what/who we need to be moral towards has been debated. Jeremy Bentham, an influential liberal philosopher, offered the suggestion that whether a being "can suffer" was an appropriate definition. Of course, a plant can arguably 'suffer', but presumably Bentham meant consciously feel pain, which I presume plants don't. I think Bentham's view has some merit, but when we apply it to the spectrum of animals of different cognitive capacities it becomes a bit vague - which animals can 'suffer' and which can't? Do we have to treat a fly morally on par with a human? I think a more graduated scale is called for, and that the ability to suffer is but one of the many cognitively advanced features that make up a 'person' (others include the ability to conceptualize oneself as a person who exists over time, to have purposes and goals, to ascribe meaning to experiences, to recall memories of the past, to communicate, etc), and so we have full moral obligations to another developed human who possesses these things but diminished obligations to the animals depending on how developed their levels of cognitive function are. Obviously a human as it develops from a single cell embryo through to when it can walk and speak and reason passes up the scale of the animal levels of cognitive function from less-than-insect mental abilities through to dog-like levels through to fully developed human levels.

Obviously there have been conservative societies, like the Maoists and the Stalinist etc that you seem obsessed with bringing up, that have tightly restricted the circle of moral concern such that people only had an obligation to be altruistic toward their own society and only toward some of those in their own society. Again, how tightly this moral circle is drawn in terms of who is 'included' in those our morality says we need to be altruistic towards is a big difference between conservatives and liberals, and has changed significantly over time. One of my favorite moral philosophers, Peter Singer, wrote an entire book on it: The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress:

Peter Singer argues that altruism began as a genetically based drive to protect one's kin and community members but has developed into a consciously chosen ethic with an expanding circle of moral concern.

If that is the case then any behavior could be plugged in under the guise of altruism. The Maoist and Stalinist were perfectly justified as they murdered for the greater good!

This seems like incoherent babbling. I'm not sure what you think you're trying to say.

[Starlight]

Except with theism you can have a teleology for humankind, the way men ought to be.

Which is a dumb and horrible thing to have. Sounds like slavery. Only the worst parents have a strict plan laid out for their children's lives, rather than letting the children have the freedom to choose their own paths. And if God's preferred way of humans living differs significantly to what science observes the optimal way of humans living to be, then we could simply conclude that God is either dumb or evil, either he doesn't actually know what is optimal for humans or despite having that knowledge he willfully wants humans to live in a less-than-optimal way.

[seer]

Any moral philosophy has two things: 1. What the moral principles are, 2. What they apply to.
Can you, for example, be moral toward a rock? Or a plant? Or an insect? Or a monkey? Or an alien? Or a human fetus? Or an adult human?

While there has been a general consensus throughout human history and culture that altruism is a crucial thing that needs to be measured and often called "morality", there has never been a strong consensus about precisely who or what it should be applied to. Many cultures in history thought it was only good to be altruistic towards your own tribe, and that you should do nothing for other tribes or even kill them. Many people today, myself included, think we should extend altruism not merely to those in our own society but to all other peoples in other countries on earth, and furthermore to the more intelligent animals also.

A major and scientifically-measurable difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" in the present is precisely with regard to how far this circle of moral concern ought to be expanded: Conservatives tend to favor what is called "ingroup-outgroup" mentality or "tribalism" which is the historical tribal idea of loyalty and altruism to one's own society but no obligations to peoples in other societies; Whereas liberals emphatically reject that idea and believe that all peoples are equally deserving of our kindness and love.

But even within both conservative and liberal circles the precise definition of what/who we need to be moral towards has been debated. Jeremy Bentham, an influential liberal, offered the suggestion that whether a being "can suffer" was an appropriate definition. Of course, a plant can arguably 'suffer', but presumably Bentham meant consciously feel pain, which I presume plants don't. I think Bentham's view has some merit, but when we apply it to the spectrum of animals of different cognitive capacities it becomes a bit vague - which animals can 'suffer' and which can't? Do we have to treat a fly morally on par with a human? I think a more graduated scale is called for, and that the ability to suffer is but one of the many cognitively advanced features that make up a 'person' (others include the ability to conceptualize oneself as a person who exists over time, to have purposes and goals, to ascribe meaning to experiences, to recall memories of the past, to communicate, etc), and so we have full moral obligations to another developed human who possesses these things but diminished obligations to the animals depending on how developed their levels of cognitive function are. Obviously a human as it develops from a single cell embryo through to when it can walk and speak and reason passes up the scale of the animal levels of cognitive function from less-than-insect mental abilities through to dog-like levels through to fully developed human levels.

This seems like incoherent babbling. I'm not sure what you think you're trying to say.

You are proving my point, you really have no idea where to draw the line, therefore that line becomes arbitrary. You or Bentham draw the line in one place, the Maoist, for the greater good, draws it in another place. As a conservative Christian ontology is the prime concern. What is the creature by nature - with man being distinct from other creatures. And that distinction begins at conception. And that uniqueness crosses all political, national and racial lines - not just applied to "my tribe." In the end Star I don't think you can rationally argue against the Maoist who executes dissenters. You draw the line at conscious suffering, he draws the line at what serves the greater good - no matter how that good is defined. Who is to say that you are more correct than him?

[Sparko]

No doubt the Inquisition’s de Torquemada and the Salem witch-burners and Moses did too. But, their behaviour is now recognised as an unacceptable abuse of human rights and the International Court of Justice has been set up by the UN to deal with such abuses of power.

so what makes the International Court of Justice the standard of moral behavior? What if the Nazi's won? Then the ICOJ would be saying that their actions were good and moral. Would you then be arguing that eliminating the Jews and cripples is a good thing?

[seer]

Which is a dumb and horrible thing to have. Sounds like slavery. Only the worst parents have a strict plan laid out for their children's lives, rather than letting the children have the freedom to choose their own paths. And if God's preferred way of humans living differs significantly to what science observes the optimal way of humans living to be, then we could simply conclude that God is either dumb or evil, either he doesn't actually know what is optimal for humans or despite having that knowledge he willfully wants humans to live in a less-than-optimal way.

Again, if humans were designed for an end, then there could, logically, be a right way for us to be. That will not be the case if we are merely biological accidents where what makes us happy or not is the result of a twist of fate. And I don't take the word of science on what makes me happy, content or not. If you look at it in just a purely evolutionary sense it is obvious that nature created us to be religious, religious belief is dominate in our species. Perhaps science will someday find that religion is key to human happiness:

Are religious people happier than non-religious people? The short answer is yes. There has been a considerable amount of research addressing this question and findings tend to indicate that religious people are (or at least report being) happier than non-religious people. There are some studies out there that do not find this effect. However, the lion’s share of the data on this topic suggests that levels of happiness are greatest amongst religious folks. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ligious-people

[Sparko]

Which is a dumb and horrible thing to have. Sounds like slavery. Only the worst parents have a strict plan laid out for their children's lives, rather than letting the children have the freedom to choose their own paths. And if God's preferred way of humans living differs significantly to what science observes the optimal way of humans living to be, then we could simply conclude that God is either dumb or evil, either he doesn't actually know what is optimal for humans or despite having that knowledge he willfully wants humans to live in a less-than-optimal way.

So your parents never taught you how to behave properly, or what is right and wrong? No guidance? no? I guess that explains a lot.

[Starlight]

Again, if humans were designed for an end, then there could, logically, be a right way for us to be.

No, if humans were designed for an end then there could be a way that God wants us to be. We need not be that way, any more than a slave need be the way her slave-owner wants her to be. It is not a "right way" to be.

If you look at it in just a purely evolutionary sense it is obvious that nature created us to be religious, religious belief is dominate in our species.

Religion is probably an evolutionary biproduct of the evolutionary need to detect hostile motives among others and reduce their hostility. If someone in the tribe is behaving hostilely there is a need to reconcile, and that evolutionary tendency misfires to cause people to try and appease the hostile motives of the environment around them, so they assume that spirits control the wind and sea and sky and try to appease them with gifts.

Perhaps science will someday find that religion is key to human happiness:

Turns out that it isn't. Heaps of studies have been done on that. It turns out that people without many friends are able to make friends (and thus feel happier and less lonely) if they attend religious gatherings. So it's no better than any other social club in that regard. The religion itself or its teachings don't seem to help with happiness.

Incidentally, two things that tend to make marriages happier than average, is if they are same-sex marriages or if the marriages are childless. That kind of goes against your idea that God's teleology is helpful for happiness.

[Tassman]

Like improving the lives of babies when you put them down? Star you do realize that you have no moral credibility on this issue - right.

Oh just stop this judgemental crap. Star is NOT suggesting the wholesale slaughter of babies. Sheesh!

Except with theism you can have a teleology for humankind, the way men ought to be. God could have a design for human morality,

Sure! IF there's a god. IF there's a divine "design for human morality". But there isn't to the best of our knowledge

nature has no such design.

Correct! Natural selection is based upon adaptive behaviour. If your behaviour is adaptive, you will survive and reproduce if it’s not you probably won’t. That’s all there is to it. Wishing there is more doesn't make it so.

[Tassman]

so what makes the International Court of Justice the standard of moral behavior?

The 193 sovereign member states of the United Nations and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights..

What if the Nazi's won? Then the ICOJ would be saying that their actions were good and moral. Would you then be arguing that eliminating the Jews and cripples is a good thing?

But they didn’t.

[Starlight]

Like improving the lives of babies when you put them down?

Oh just stop this judgemental crap. Star is NOT suggesting the wholesale slaughter of babies. Sheesh!

Absurd over-the-top emotionalistic outrage is the only card in the anti-abortionist arsenal so they have to play it again and again and again, instead of any kind of reasonable or rational discussion.

Plus they all try to malign me by depicting me as personally killing babies - as Seer does above by saying "when you put them down" - which is a fairly common way of talking about me on this forum. When in reality, I don't know anyone who's had an abortion, I've never given anyone advice to have an abortion. Jaecp is the one on this forum who volunteers at Planned Parenthood. I don't even know where any abortion clinics are. But they can't cope with reality, so in their minds I'm some sort of mass baby slaughterer just because I say I'm fine with it being legal for women to choose to get abortions, and fine with countries having laws like the Netherlands does to allow post-birth abortions in rare circumstances. My philosophical acknowledgement and armchair agreement that I am cognitively okay with the actions of those other people being legal is reconceptualised by TWebbers as me personally actively murdering infants wholesale.

[Tassman]

Absurd over-the-top emotionalistic outrage is the only card in the anti-abortionist arsenal so they have to play it again and again and again, instead of any kind of reasonable or rational discussion.

Plus they all try to malign me by depicting me as personally killing babies - as Seer does above by saying "when you put them down" - which is a fairly common way of talking about me on this forum. When in reality, I don't know anyone who's had an abortion, I've never given anyone advice to have an abortion. Jaecp is the one on this forum who volunteers at Planned Parenthood. I don't even know where any abortion clinics are. But they can't cope with reality, so in their minds I'm some sort of mass baby slaughterer just because I say I'm fine with it being legal for women to choose to get abortions, and fine with countries having laws like the Netherlands does to allow post-birth abortions in rare circumstances. My philosophical acknowledgement and armchair agreement that I am cognitively okay with the actions of those other people being legal is reconceptualised by TWebbers as me personally actively murdering infants wholesale.

Emotionalistic outrage is all they’ve got, they don’t have a rational argument to present, other than the one they know we won’t accept. Namely that from the moment of conception a zygote is an ensouled "child of God" and therefore sacred. Hence they resort to one of their favourite pastimes, i.e. heaping “guilt” on the “wicked”.

[seer]

No, if humans were designed for an end then there could be a way that God wants us to be. We need not be that way, any more than a slave need be the way her slave-owner wants her to be. It is not a "right way" to be.

Nonsense, like was mentioned, if God created us like an engineer created a car then there is a right way for us to be/live. And when we live or act in another fashion we/society breaks down. And that has been the dark history of man. I mean even you would agree that many of the New Testament principles like the golden rule, love of neighbor, generosity, forgiveness, justice would make any society run more smoothly. That is not slavery.

Religion is probably an evolutionary biproduct of the evolutionary need to detect hostile motives among others and reduce their hostility. If someone in the tribe is behaving hostilely there is a need to reconcile, and that evolutionary tendency misfires to cause people to try and appease the hostile motives of the environment around them, so they assume that spirits control the wind and sea and sky and try to appease them with gifts.

It does not change the fact that men seem to be wired for faith, and no one knows why. You can speculate but that is all it is, speculation.

Turns out that it isn't. Heaps of studies have been done on that. It turns out that people without many friends are able to make friends (and thus feel happier and less lonely) if they attend religious gatherings. So it's no better than any other social club in that regard. The religion itself or its teachings don't seem to help with happiness.

More nonsense, social clubs can not offer the hope that religion does. Religion offers hope beyond this vale of tears, that is something no social club can compete with. Religion can also provide a transcendent purpose and meaning for life.

Incidentally, two things that tend to make marriages happier than average, is if they are same-sex marriages or if the marriages are childless. That kind of goes against your idea that God's teleology is helpful for happiness.

And a rapists is happiest when he rapes. So what is your point?

[seer]

Oh just stop this judgemental crap. Star is NOT suggesting the wholesale slaughter of babies. Sheesh!

How many children do we need to kill before you get morally outraged concerning this moral evil Tass? Five, ten, a hundred? a thousand? How many Tass?

[seer]

Absurd over-the-top emotionalistic outrage is the only card in the anti-abortionist arsenal so they have to play it again and again and again, instead of any kind of reasonable or rational discussion.

But I did offer a discussion in post #94:

You are proving my point, you really have no idea where to draw the line, therefore that line becomes arbitrary. You or Bentham draw the line in one place, the Maoist, for the greater good, draws it in another place. As a conservative Christian ontology is the prime concern. What is the creature by nature - with man being distinct from other creatures. And that distinction begins at conception. And that uniqueness crosses all political, national and racial lines - not just applied to "my tribe." In the end Star I don't think you can rationally argue against the Maoist who executes dissenters. You draw the line at conscious suffering, he draws the line at what serves the greater good - no matter how that good is defined. Who is to say that you are more correct than him?