Science of Morality

[AlecWelsh]

What was wrong? That we arguably just went through one of the most bloody centuries of human history?

That is not true with proportion to the growing population over time. WE are more moral given how many people die compared to how many people living.

[AlecWelsh]

And where does that standard come from?

The objectiveness in experiences of conscious individuals. For example regardless of what animal intentionally starving them causes the being to experience suffering in a similar way. It is the feelings of conscious beings and the goals of morality is reducing suffering and increasing the opportunity of well being for individuals.

[seer]

That is not true with proportion to the growing population over time. WE are more moral given how many people die compared to how many people living.

Well I have no idea if that is true. The point is the last century was very bloody, and this one is staring out no better and with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction who knows what the future will bring. We may in fact be at our high point right now.

[seer]

The objectiveness in experiences of conscious individuals. For example regardless of what animal intentionally starving them causes the being to experience suffering in a similar way. It is the feelings of conscious beings and the goals of morality is reducing suffering and increasing the opportunity of well being for individuals.

But that is not objective, that is subjective. Your goal, or my goal, may be to reduce the suffering of others but that goal is not necessarily shared by others. And our opinion would not be any more valid or correct than theirs. Beside, it may just be that certain genetic traits are becoming more predominate which would have nothing to do with objective morals.

[AlecWelsh]

But that is not objective, that is subjective. Your goal, or my goal, may be to reduce the suffering of others but that goal is not necessarily shared by others. And our opinion would not be any more valid or correct than theirs. Beside, it may just be that certain genetic traits are becoming more predominate which would have nothing to do with objective morals.

How is experiencing hunger subjective? When talking about the subject of morality the point is to be morally sound no different than a Doctors goal is to make their patients healthy. Makes no rational sense to even consider the arguments of someone who is not following the basic premise of morality on a conversation of morality does it?

[seer]

Makes no rational sense to even consider the arguments of someone who is not following the basic premise of morality on a conversation of morality does it?

But that is where you opinion comes in. A man may believe that it is perfectly moral to help his and his own at the expense of others, to gain wealth and power at the expense of others. You and I may disagree but again our opinion is no moral valid or correct than his.

[AlecWelsh]

But that is where you opinion comes in. A man may believe that it is perfectly moral to help his and his own at the expense of others, to gain wealth and power at the expense of others. You and I may disagree but again our opinion is no moral valid or correct than his.

Do you just not understand the concept of having a premise? How about the examples I used, do you understand them? Do you understand how standards work?

[AlecWelsh]

Can you argue the alternative?

[shunyadragon]

No, you are a typical anti-Semite... And still an idiot...

Name calling like this will loose what ever respect you had, which was not much.

Idiot answer . . . No response as usual.

[seer]

Do you just not understand the concept of having a premise? How about the examples I used, do you understand them? Do you understand how standards work?

Alec, yes I understand what a premise is. But that is your premise for morality, there is nothing objective about it. Do you understand history? The Nazis believed it was a moral good to rid the world of Jews. The Stalinists and Maoists thought it was a moral good to eliminate millions of dissenters to maintain the social order.

[seer]

Name calling like this will loose what ever respect you had, which was not much.

Idiot answer . . . No response as usual.

You are still an uniformed anti-Semite.

[AlecWelsh]

Alec, yes I understand what a premise is. But that is your premise for morality, there is nothing objective about it. Do you understand history? The Nazis believed it was a moral good to rid the world of Jews. The Stalinists and Maoists thought it was a moral good to eliminate millions of dissenters to maintain the social order.

No, it is objective because the experience of humans an animals are no whims. The point of having a moral code is to reduce suffering and increase well-being. This is not subjective this is the entire point of having a moral standard. It would be subjective if say, morality was based on the whims of a imaginative creator. The issue is you cannot move past the is point because you lose the argument. I see no point in continuing with you Seer until you begin to form your opinions based on facts and not bias. Either argue the alternative, that an individual could live on his own without any help from society or admit that individuals are dependent on humanity.

[Bill the Cat]

Morality is based not on morals themselves but on what individuals think God's says is moral.

Correct.

So morality doesn't exist it is the will of God.

In a manner of speaking.

With so many difference religions believing in so many different Gods though all of their claims as equally valid as the next,

Simply false. The existence of an opinion does not validate the truthfulness of that opinion.

all coming to different and sometime contradicting morals, what exactly should we believe?

The one that is true. It is your task to discover which is true.

We have no reason to believe Christians any more than any other religion.

Yes we do. You just choose to reject the reason.

I disagree with your assertion in the first place. Morality stands on it's own or it doesn't exist. You do not get both.

Morality does not stand on its own. It is a property of the character of God.

[AlecWelsh]

Correct.



In a manner of speaking.



Simply false. The existence of an opinion does not validate the truthfulness of that opinion.



The one that is true. It is your task to discover which is true.



Yes we do. You just choose to reject the reason.




Morality does not stand on its own. It is a property of the character of God.

The default position is that it is more likely all religions are wrong rather than one happening to be born right. Each has Faith, scripture, spiritual experiences to justify their beliefs. Of course you do not think so, you happened to be born into the one true religion. But what evidence do you have to offer that another religion cannot claim itself?

[JonathanL]

The default position is that it is more likely all religions are wrong rather than one happening to be born right.

I think it's funny how you're conveniently excluding atheism. Why is it that atheism should be considered more likely than any religion by default?