Morality Without Justice

[Tassman]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8825[/ATTACH]

Very good!

No actually, those other buzzy, annoying little insects that sting, mosquitoes to be precise...in case you'r planning on a picture of bees next.

[Tassman]

And I'm showing how that notion is silly. There is no reason to think that moral ideals do or could exist apart from minds.

So if one chimp kills another chimp he is held morally accountable?

Chimps have their own ways of maintaining order within the group, just as humans do.

[Tassman]

Jim, what don't you get? Even I agree with you that following the golden rule is a good way to run a society other men differ. They prefer power, dominance and control. And our opinion is no more valid than theirs. It's just our personal preference. So your whole point is nonsensical.

Yes our opinion is more valid than theirs because the Golden Rule is grounded in the evolved instincts of altruism and reciprocity, which is inherent to social species such as us. This accounts for variations of the Golden Rule being found in virtually every community in all corners of the world throughout human history.

[seer]

Moral ideals are just rules of behavior, and those exist for species most would not consider to have a mind.

No, animals who don't have a "mind" do not think in moral terms. Their behavior is merely mechanical, instinctual.

Why not?

Why? Why would the chimp that is acting on instinct be morally accountable? Did he have a choice? And what exactly in the universe is going to punish him?

I was hoping you would define the differences.

Scientific discovery generally comes by repeatable experimentation. History, and just about everything else, comes by personal experience, and personal testimony. You can't repeat the actual battle Gettysburg.

[seer]

Yes our opinion is more valid than theirs because the Golden Rule is grounded in the evolved instincts of altruism and reciprocity, which is inherent to social species such as us. This accounts for variations of the Golden Rule being found in virtually every community in all corners of the world throughout human history.

No its not Tass. It depends what your goals are. If your group prefers power, dominance and control (kind of like you liberals; ) then the golden rule is a joke. And their greed, selfishness and cruelty are also evolved instincts. So pointing evolved instincts tells us nothing.

[tabibito]

No, animals who don't have a "mind" do not think in moral terms.

possible, maybe even probable.

Their behavior is merely mechanical, instinctual.

What I have observed over the years of animals - wild, feral, and domestic - leads me to believe this unlikely in the extreme.

[seer]

possible, maybe even probable.

What is probable? That they think in moral terms? They sit around discussing moral theories and their consequences?

[tabibito]

What is probable? That they think in moral terms? They sit around discussing moral theories and their consequences?

No - the premise "animals who don't have a "mind" do not think in moral terms." was possible or probable. However, reading the statement as written - any animal having no "mind" would certainly not think in moral terms.

[JimL]

Jim, what don't you get? Even I agree with you that following the golden rule is a good way to run a society other men differ.

Why seer, why do you think that the golden rule is a good? Whats so good about it?

They prefer power, dominance and control. And our opinion is no more valid than theirs. It's just our personal preference. So your whole point is nonsensical.

And for the umpteenth time, it doesn't matter what is prefered, the only thing that matters is if it works. Thats what makes it objective. You have already admitted that you believe the golden rule works for the good, so if you are correct in that, then the golden rule is an objective moral.
Your constant reference to tyrants is a canard, since you don't even believe that their sytem of governance works to the good of society. Either you are right or they are right and whomever it is that is right, they are right because whatever it is that they believe is objectively true. If you don't believe that, then you don't really believe in such things as objective good and evil.

[seer]

Why seer, why do you think that the golden rule is a good? Whats so good about it?

Jim it is good because it conforms for how God wants us to live, and it conforms to the world I subjectively desire to live in.

And for the umpteenth time, it doesn't matter what is prefered, the only thing that matters is if it works. Thats what makes it objective. You have already admitted that you believe the golden rule works for the good, so if you are correct in that, then the golden rule is an objective moral.
Your constant reference to tyrants is a canard, since you don't even believe that their sytem of governance works to the good of society. Either you are right or they are right and whomever it is that is right, they are right because whatever it is that they believe is objectively true. If you don't believe that, then you don't really believe in such things as objective good and evil.

Nonsense Jim, I agree that I have a personal preference for how I subjectively would like to see the world ordered, but in a godless universe my opinion is no more objectively correct or valid than the opinion who hold a different view. How could it be?

[JimL]

Jim it is good because it conforms for how God wants us to live, and it conforms to the world I subjectively desire to live in.

And according to you god is good, and so he wants us to conform to his desires, i.e. to the golden rule, because the golden rule is itself good. Can you not see the circularity of your argument? The reason you subjectively desire to live in such a world is also because you believe it to be objectively good. The only difference is that you want to attribute what is good to god. But if you stop to think about it, it really doesn't matter if there is an objective source of morality, all that matters is whether or not morals work to the good of humanity in general. It is really a simple and staight forward concept to grasp so I can only assume that your inability to do so is due to the agenda that has closed your mind.

Nonsense Jim, I agree that I have a personal preference for how I subjectively would like to see the world ordered, but in a godless universe my opinion is no more objectively correct or valid than the opinion who hold a different view. How could it be?

Opinions do matter seer, they matter if they are correct opinions. Your problem is in thinking that with regards to the peace and happiness of human society there is no right or wrong unless there is a god that commands it. That is, prima facie, just dumb logic. In your case, i suspect it is just stubbornness.

[seer]

Opinions do matter seer, they matter if they are correct opinions. Your problem is in thinking that with regards to the peace and happiness of human society there is no right or wrong unless there is a god that commands it. That is, prima facie, just dumb logic. In your case, i suspect it is just stubbornness.

No Jim, this is just stupid, and I'm not sure why you aren't getting it. Why is peace and happiness the goal for humanity? Because we subjectively desire it - others seek a different goal. There is no such goal for humanity. Heck, even survival is not a goal. You are not making sense.

[JimL]

No Jim, this is just stupid, and I'm not sure why you aren't getting it.

Oh the irony!

Why is peace and happiness the goal for humanity? Because we subjectively desire it - others seek a different goal.

Yes seer, peace and happiness is the goal for humanity because that in the end is what we all desire, in the same way we all desire to survive.

There is no such goal for humanity.

Really? How do you think democratic governance came about.

Heck, even survival is not a goal.

Now thats funny seer. We all want to survive and a peaceful happy existence is the best way to do that. Heck, your goal seer is to survive for eternity in a peaceful happy world, so you're kinda arguing against yourself once again.

You are not making sense.

Sure I am, you're just unable to look at it objectively. That would undermine your subjective agenda!

[seer]

Yes seer, peace and happiness is the goal for humanity because that in the end is what we all desire, in the same way we all desire to survive.

Who is we all? The Communists? The Jihadist? The Hutus?

Really? How do you think democratic governance came about.

By force?

Now thats funny seer. We all want to survive and a peaceful happy existence is the best way to do that. Heck, your goal seer is to survive for eternity in a peaceful happy world, so you're kinda arguing against yourself once again.

Yes, we subjectively "want." Nothing objective about it.

[Doug Shaver]

many, if not most, crimes go unpunished.

The perpetrators don't suffer the way we wish they would suffer. That doesn't mean they don't suffer.