Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Human Animal...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    Since we've developed different hardware on top of the primitive hardware we share with our common ancestors, that tension cannot NOT exist. How then is that "curious"?
    I have no idea what that means. Where does this different hardware come from? Why didn't it override the old hard drives? And what makes you think we aren't "genetically" still primitive?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      It was clearly implied, especially given the context of this thread. And then you go on to say:


      Emphasis mine. The intent here is pretty obvious: you are equating the desirability of consequences with their moral value.
      Very intriguing. Correct me here, but are you saying that the phrase "consequences we might not like" implies some sort of moral standard? Would you mind explaining that a little further sir?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Machinist View Post

        Very intriguing. Correct me here, but are you saying that the phrase "consequences we might not like" implies some sort of moral standard? Would you mind explaining that a little further sir?
        I think he means this:

        Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seer View Post

          I think he means this:

          Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome
          OK Thanks. But even from this standpoint, the question what makes a "good outcome" a good outcome remains. This ideal of "good" and the objective basis of it is what you are MM are arguing, correct?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seer View Post

            I have no idea what that means. Where does this different hardware come from?
            It evolved, just like fangs, venom sacs, and adrenal glands evolved.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Why didn't it override the old hard drives?
            Hard drives is a poor analogy, as we're not talking about mere storage. Your biological drive to procreate more than you need to inevitably puts you at tension with your moral beliefs.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            And what makes you think we aren't "genetically" still primitive?
            I never said otherwise. We are genetically very primitive genetically.

            Christopher Hitchens said it best when he said

            "Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Machinist View Post

              OK Thanks. But even from this standpoint, the question what makes a "good outcome" a good outcome remains. This ideal of "good" and the objective basis of it is what you are MM are arguing, correct?
              Consequentialism, has it's problems if an act is moral or not based on future consequences. I save a 17 year old boy from drowning, a few minutes later he drive recklessly and kills a family of five. According to Consequentialism my act of saving the boy was not a moral good.
              Last edited by seer; 03-29-2021, 11:01 AM.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                Very intriguing. Correct me here, but are you saying that the phrase "consequences we might not like" implies some sort of moral standard? Would you mind explaining that a little further sir?
                MM is trying to equivocate "consequences we might not like" with "consequences we might not like are bad". Stoic didn't say consequences we don't like are bad
                “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

                -Ghandi (Disputed)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by seer View Post

                  Consequentialism, has it's problems if an act is moral or not based on future consequences. I save a 17 year old boy from drowning, a few minutes later he drive recklessly and kills a family of five. According to Consequentialism my act of saving the boy was not a moral good.
                  Consequentialism doesn't deal with future contingencies, but merely immediate cause and effect and weighing the various effects are actions or (non-action).
                  “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

                  -Ghandi (Disputed)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                    Consequentialism doesn't deal with future contingencies, but merely immediate cause and effect and weighing the various effects are actions or (non-action).
                    Where is it said it is limited to an immediate cause and effect? But I think we would agree that saving the 17 year old (his accident being a pretty immediate effect) would not have been a moral good for the family he killed. If not why not just say that saving the life of the boy was a moral good in itself? Why even speak of consequences?

                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seer View Post

                      Where is it said it is limited to an immediate cause and effect? But I think we would agree that saving the 17 year old (his accident being a pretty immediate effect) would not have been a moral good for the family he killed. If not why not just say that saving the life of the boy was a moral good in itself? Why even speak of consequences?
                      Humans aren't omniscient and wouldn't know that five minutes after being rescued the individual would later go on to kill a family (or anyone at all). I should have been more precise in saying "unknown future contingencies". Mea culpa.

                      There are better dilemmas that illustrate the problems with consequentialism on the whole, but that's not my job, nor particularly topical to the OP.
                      “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

                      -Ghandi (Disputed)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                        Humans aren't omniscient and wouldn't know that five minutes after being rescued the individual would later go on to kill a family (or anyone at all). I should have been more precise in saying "unknown future contingencies". Mea culpa.

                        There are better dilemmas that illustrate the problems with consequentialism on the whole, but that's not my job, nor particularly topical to the OP.
                        If that is the case I don't see the difference in saying the act of saving the kid if good in and of itself. Regardless of consequences.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          It was clearly implied, especially given the context of this thread.
                          You clearly read something into it that wasn't there, as usual.

                          And then you go on to say:

                          Emphasis mine. The intent here is pretty obvious: you are equating the desirability of consequences with their moral value.
                          No, I said nothing about moral value. I was staying with the topic as laid out in the OP, which also said nothing about moral value. That is something you introduced into the thread, and you seem intent on seeing it everywhere.

                          This thread is about the tension between "the rational and the animal nature." I interpret this as the (occasional) conflict between desires that were blindly programmed into us in the distant past and desires of a future state which our current actions might be able to bring about.

                          You and I could have a long (and likely fruitless) conversation about the link between our desires and morality, but that really is a different topic.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                            You clearly read something into it that wasn't there, as usual.


                            No, I said nothing about moral value. I was staying with the topic as laid out in the OP, which also said nothing about moral value. That is something you introduced into the thread, and you seem intent on seeing it everywhere.

                            This thread is about the tension between "the rational and the animal nature." I interpret this as the (occasional) conflict between desires that were blindly programmed into us in the distant past and desires of a future state which our current actions might be able to bring about.

                            You and I could have a long (and likely fruitless) conversation about the link between our desires and morality, but that really is a different topic.
                            The topic of this thread could be summarized as "Why ought we not give in to our base instincts?" which is a moral question. Your answer is that we ought not because it can lead to undesirable consequences, which suggests that the mortality of an action is defined by the desirability of its outcome, which, I think, is obviously flawed reasoning.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              The topic of this thread could be summarized as "Why ought we not give in to our base instincts?" which is a moral question.
                              I would summarize it as "Why do we not always want to give in to our base instincts?" which could be considered a moral question if you want it to. I personally think the question can be answered without bringing morality into it, as a reasonable person can see from my posts.

                              Your answer is that we ought not because it can lead to undesirable consequences,
                              Or, as I put it, we don't want to because it can lead to undesirable consequences.

                              which suggests that the mortality of an action is defined by the desirability of its outcome, which, I think, is obviously flawed reasoning.
                              The mortality of an action is defined by whether you and others survive it.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                                I would summarize it as "Why do we not always want to give in to our base instincts?"
                                Right, on what moral basis do we not always want to give in to our base instincts? I don't blame you for wanting to run away from this question, because no atheist I've debated has ever come up with a good answer. So while I wouldn't say you're in good company, you at least have company.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                                1 response
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christian3  
                                Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
                                97 responses
                                519 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                                532 responses
                                3,282 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Tassman
                                by Tassman
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                                21 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                                144 responses
                                1,068 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X