Are You A Good Man....

[Tassman]

But people objectively experience pleasure and pain. So there should be a way to maximize the amount of pleasurable feeling in people and minimize the amount of displeasurable feeling. Once that is done, an optimum society has been achieved.

Philosopher/neuroscientist Sam Harris would agree with you. He makes a convincing case in his 'Moral Landscape' for a morality that is based on human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality.

I eat animals, so I think I lose my right to complain here.

But we nevertheless instinctively put our survival ahead of that of the aliens.

[seer]

I didn't say that we "fundy Christians" do, we still need a consensus in the US. But you don't have a consensus with the The Declaration of Human Rights., you don't even have a large majority - you have a minority of countries.



There you go tap dancing again! How many times have you told me that all our acts are determined by antecedent conditions? I don't have to call it fatalism, just determinism. So we think and act the way the laws of nature caused us to think and act. The Jihadist does what he does because that is how nature formed him to act and react - period - end of story.

Yes Moses did what nature created him to do. And in case you haven't noticed bonehead we are still tribal - with better weapons. Human nature really hasn't changed that much.

[seer]

But people objectively experience pleasure and pain. So there should be a way to maximize the amount of pleasurable feeling in people and minimize the amount of displeasurable feeling. Once that is done, an optimum society has been achieved.

Yes that is your opinion on what constitutes an optimum society. What if increasing the pain or burden of a minority causes greater pleasure or wealth for the majority - like with indentured servant-hood? The majority would see that as optimum.

I eat animals, so I think I lose my right to complain here.

That is kind of the point isn't it. There is no universal or transcendent moral rule that you can appeal to.

[Sparko]

Why do clear minorities like fundy Christians or fundy Muslims get to tell everybody else what to do?

Why do clear minorities like LBGT tell everybody else what to do?

[stfoskey15]

Yes that is your opinion on what constitutes an optimum society. What if increasing the pain or burden of a minority causes greater pleasure or wealth for the majority - like with indentured servant-hood? The majority would see that as optimum.

It doesn't work that way. The amount of pain indentured servants experience is far greater than the amount of pleasure received by those who have indentured servants. Consider reading section 7 of this article for more responses to potential objections to consequentialist beliefs. https://web.archive.org/web/20161115...entialism.html

That is kind of the point isn't it. There is no universal or transcendent moral rule that you can appeal to.

So what?

[seer]

It doesn't work that way. The amount of pain indentured servants experience is far greater than the amount of pleasure received by those who have indentured servants.

No, you are missing my point. So what if the pain of the indentured servant is greater? As long as it makes the owners life better and more pleasurable?

So what?

So what if your pain is great as long as you are a good meal for the Aliens.

[Tassman]

No, you are missing my point. So what if the pain of the indentured servant is greater? As long as it makes the owners life better and more pleasurable?

No, you are missing the point with your unsubstantiated claim that without divinely revealed moral laws humans are irretrievably selfish. This is demonstrably untrue. As evolved social beings we are instinctively compassionate and cooperative.

So what if your pain is great as long as you are a good meal for the Aliens.

Because our primary instinct is survival...as you well know what with your desperate need for eternal survival.

[Tassman]

I didn't say that we "fundy Christians" do, we still need a consensus in the US. But you don't have a consensus with the The Declaration of Human Rights., you don't even have a large majority - you have a minority of countries.

Your country and mine are signatories of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, as nations, we consensually support it.

There you go tap dancing again! How many times have you told me that all our acts are determined by antecedent conditions? I don't have to call it fatalism, just determinism. So we think and act the way the laws of nature caused us to think and act. The Jihadist does what he does because that is how nature formed him to act and react - period - end of story.

Yes Moses did what nature created him to do. And in case you haven't noticed bonehead we are still tribal - with better weapons. Human nature really hasn't changed that much.

[seer]

Your country and mine are signatories of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, as nations, we consensually support it.

How does that change the fact that the vast of majority of countries have not signed on?



The why are you arguing against my point - that it was nature that made us to be cruel, religious, selfish, etc... That when you bitch about religion you are in fact complaining about nature.


Are you being dense on purpose? There is nothing universal about the Declaration since the vast majority of countries have not signed on. And just as what the Jihadists are doing is a perfectly natural consequence of the evolutionary process.

[Tassman]

How does that change the fact that the vast of majority of countries have not signed on?





The why are you arguing against my point - that it was nature that made us to be cruel, religious, selfish, etc... That when you bitch about religion you are in fact complaining about nature.




Are you being dense on purpose? There is nothing universal about the Declaration since the vast majority of countries have not signed on. And just as what the Jihadists are doing is a perfectly natural consequence of the evolutionary process.

[seer]

None of the above are arguments against Determinism, merely your expression of distaste of the fact that we live in a demonstrably determined universe.

You are correct, it is not an argument against determinism per se. It is meant to demonstrate your selective reading of our behaviors. You are fond of telling us how the natural processes caused us to act in certain ways to organize societies and to live in community. Then you rail against religion or war or selfishness - yet these behaviors are just as determined by the laws of nature as anything else. At bottom the Jihadist does not do what he does because of religion, but because that is way biological evolution caused him to think and act. But why rail against natural acts? Why get upset with the way nature created us? It seems more than strange that a materialist like you would be so bothered by much of what the material process generated.

[Sparko]

You are correct, it is not an argument against determinism per se. It is meant to demonstrate your selective reading of our behaviors. You are fond of telling us how the natural processes caused us to act in certain ways to organize societies and to live in community. Then you rail against religion or war or selfishness - yet these behaviors are just as determined by the laws of nature as anything else. At bottom the Jihadist does not do what he does because of religion, but because that is way biological evolution caused him to think and act. But why rail against natural acts? Why get upset with the way nature created us? It seems more than strange that a materialist like you would be so bothered by much of what the material process generated.

He can't help himself. He was determined by nature to complain about things that nobody can control.

[seer]

He can't help himself. He was determined by nature to complain about things that nobody can control.

It kind of makes it all meaningless...

[Tassman]

You are correct, it is not an argument against determinism per se.

incoherent solution, namely Libertarian Free-Will which cannot exist...except via magical divine fiat. In short, you have no argument.

It is meant to demonstrate your selective reading of our behaviors. You are fond of telling us how the natural processes caused us to act in certain ways to organize societies and to live in community. Then you rail against religion or war or selfishness - yet these behaviors are just as determined by the laws of nature as anything else. At bottom the Jihadist does not do what he does because of religion, but because that is way biological evolution caused him to think and act. But why rail against natural acts? Why get upset with the way nature created us? It seems more than strange that a materialist like you would be so bothered by much of what the material process generated.

...as opposed to accepting the logically incoherent notion of LFW you mean?

[seer]

incoherent solution, namely Libertarian Free-Will which cannot exist...except via magical divine fiat. In short, you have no argument.

...as opposed to accepting the logically incoherent notion of LFW you mean?

And you still haven't offered a logical response. Why do you rail against the religious tendencies that nature determined? Why do you dislike nature so much?