please stop- honestly
 

Hank somehow knew that I'm taking off for New Orleans in about five hours and was trying to tell me, in his own special way, to be good.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

OK - I am using terms I don't quite understand the definition of. It may not be instinctual, but I definitely think our social behaivor has been passed down through generation to generation. Human social behavior is a trait that helps us survive. I think certain types of moral thinking have been passed down because that type of moral thinking helps us form societies. So in orther words, parts of moral thinking are a mutation that has been passed down because it helps us perpetuate our genetic code. However, as you guys are probably sick of hearing me saying, I don't think this mutation is the entire foundation of our moral inclinations.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Are you implying that I am repeating myself Ad Nauseum. That my have something to do with the fact that Hank has hired some of his Detroit underground pals to break my fingers.

please stop- honestly
 

Those were just my thoughts off the top of my head- I can't prove any of it per se.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Parts of moral thinking, like the instinct for religion?

Some of us keep trying to reason with you, to little avail.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Aboslutely. You have seen those recent studies that show man has a religous Gene. I think that makes perfect sense because societies that have religion are much more cohesive and survive better than those that don't. A theocracy seems to keep the people in line better because eternal hell and damnation are a strong incentive.

But as I stated before, genetic mutations can't explain the convergence of morality in this world.



Just out of curiousity which points am I wrong on:

1) Reason and logic in themselves cannot be a basis for a moral code

2) Morality in the world is converging

3) (a)It is hard to tell a foreign leader to adopt your way of moral thinking if you are a moral relativist.

(b) it is hard to critisize slavery in other countrys if you are a moral relativist.

4) A moral code based on pure selfishness is insufficient to justify things like universal human rights.

5) A moral code based on human mutation and genetic surival is not sufficient to justify universal human rights.

please stop- honestly
 

:(:(:(:(:(

Spanky, Hank is the product of divorce. He doesn't deal well when the adults bicker. Please stop. Remember the children.

please stop- honestly
 

Now that he's grown up, I would think he would like the public make-up sex. At least, if it's with Pretty Lady and Spanky's aesthetically pleasing.

please stop- honestly
 

I'm pretty sure that make-up sex is off topic for this board. Especially if Hank's involved.

please stop- honestly
 

I think we can work public make-up sex into this whole morality thing pretty easily.

bloomberg.com
 

Is this supposedly reputable? Because an opinion column in it has a massive misstatement in it that partially undermines the argument it's trying to make. I know that opinion pieces are the product of the author, etc., but it seems like normally they get fact-checked at least.

The misstatement is along the lines of "And this apple is the same thing as an orange, so you can easily remove the peel with just your fingers. Influential company has chosen to have an apple, showing just how much corporate America prefers fruits with easily removeable peels." Only, an apple isn't an orange, and you can't remove the peel of the apple with your fingers.

Sorry, Hank, Nothing Personal
 

This is the morality thread.

Feel free to post on "Gadgets" or on the Detroit Board.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

1. Wrong. Reason and logic are themselves forms of faith. Also, what the hell does "basis" mean; a moral code is itself something, and damn well better incorporate elements of both logic and faith to work; which is the basis if both are sine qua nons?

2. Dissent. There are moral codes that periodically converge and separate. Within the US, I believe we have a less unified moral code that 50 years ago, even if worldwide there can be a more intelligent conversation among Catholics and Buddhists today than 50 years ago.

3. Completely and totally wrong. Seeing morality as bound to time and circumstances does not mean that all is moral; while it is always fun to win arguments by setting up straw men, oversimplifying the position of those who believe morality must be motivated from the inside rather than imposed will only win you points among simpletons (Hi, Hank!). Please re-read the debate between Ivan and Father Zosima.

4. OK, you get one. Or is it just that you've chosen to prove a tautology?

5. Do not underestimate the creativity of the human species.

(Yea! The reinforcements have arrived! We can keep this debate going through the weekend!)

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Where did faith come from. I did not mention faith in my sentence. IS there any logic to the Ten Commandments or are they just commandments? If the basis of morality is selfishness you can make arguments. Like - It is wrong till kill innocent people, because if you do somday somebody might kill you. So it is important to set up a rule in society against killing innocent people for your own protection. But if the basis of morality is not selfishness then what is the basis? Why is killinig people wrong - if you can refer to some code that say it is then you are OK - but with out a basis you are lost. Unless you can give me some rational reason why killing is wrong that does not include selfishness. Like I said before, the terms morality, right and wrong don't mean anything unless there is a code agreed upon by the person using the term and the person listening to the term.

There are way to many variable to agree on this. But I would point out that slavery used to be accepted all over teh world. Now it is very rare. Democracy was not considered a preferable form of government. Now most governments are democratic, and if they are not, they try and claim to be. It seems to me that general moral principles are starting to be accepted by the whole world.


I dont' understand this. When did anyone say that if morality is bound to time and circumstance means that all is moral? What does that even mean?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

This is what I still don't get: The dilemma posed is a) divine morality b) self-interest "morality"

there's something in between the two, which spanky seems not to have acknowledged the existence of, which is a morality based on a recognition that pure self-interest is mutually destructive, and that placing a collective interest above that self-interest can be in the interest of all.

So far as I can tell, Spanky would say that the only way the prisoner's dilemma could be solved is if God said "thou shalt not rat out your coconspirator".

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

When you are working till midnight so you and the wife (right) aren't fucking, does she ever call bullshit by checking to see if you are wasting time here? I'm mean what is wrong in your life that you go home late because of "work load" but spend time here? When answering, remember, no one here likes you.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

The Divine morality is not the same as the collective morality (the ultimate collective morality was communist which was Atheist).


I think the collective theory of morality is basically the same as the self interest. The collective theory is that it is better for the individuals if they form a collective. And for the collective the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. So you are better off if you are in a collective, but sometimes in a collective the individual gets sacrificed so you should just hope you are not the individual that needs to be sacrificed. You are better of in the collective and the odds are you won't be the one that is sacrificed.

please stop- honestly
 

Nice work, Hank. I'm embarassed to say that it took me about this long to realize that you'd lifted the post via Google skills. Still, a worthy contribution which should put and end to the nattering.

S_A_M

The meaning of moral and immoral
 

What is wrong with this statement:

If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

What is your point? That morality is divine, given to us by "God?" If it is, I'm willing to believe you. All you have to do is prove it to me.

We're past opening argument. No public policy arguments. Proof, my boy. Lay your proof that morality is divine on the table. If not, I move for directed verdict, and sanctions. You haven't come close to proving your case.

The thing is, in any court, anywhere, the notion that there is a higher "divine" law handed down wouldn't even pass summary judgment.

Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal
 

Generally, not much. Here are my nits on the statement -- I think here needs only be agreement on the relevant elements of a common moral code. If we're talking about "thou shalt not kill" evaluations of moral conduct, the way our respective moral codes view polygamy probably isn't relevant.


I also don't know if the introductory clause is necessary. If someone has a moral code based entirely on self-interest (assuming such a code rises to the level of a moral code), I'm not sure why the rest of the statement wouldn't apply.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Projecting, again?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Not at all. I think your naivete leads you to think that the fact that you and I care means there must be some universal external power or intelligence requiring us (and everyone else) to care.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

So now are we going to debate free will and grace?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I'm a Pelagian, so that could get ugly.

BR(anyone wanting to get into it over the epistemological implications of the fallen nature of man in this context should probably do it over PM)C

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I view myself as an Augustinian-Pelagian, believing that people are both good by nature and inherantly fallen. Grace is as intrinsic as original sin.

Indeed, I think the post-Vatican II Catholic church has embraced at least as much Pelagianism as did Pelagius.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I don't know what all these big words mean, but why do you think people are good by nature?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Nah, they're generally considered semi-Pelagian; Pelagius denied original sin entirely, believing that, if man has free will, and must choose to act in accordance with God's wishes to be saved, then man must inherently have the capacity to do so (i.e.: man can through exercise of his will, effectively, save himself - I've heard this best summarized as "responsibility necessarily implies ability"). Semi-Pelagianism (which also was formally denounced, but is, you are correct, pretty much the unofficial view of the RC these days) holds that man is fallen and grace is still necessary to enable man to discern God's wishes, but grace alone is not sufficient to secure salvation.

Straight-up Augustinianism (grace alone, and that in the sole discretion of God) is still official doctrine. Evangelical proddies are pretty much the last proponents of that.

On a more fun (and, given the lack of anything useful happening today, appropriate) note, this dude made me think of y'all:

http://abum.com/?show_media=1439#nohead

(work-safe; must have sound)

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have children.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I tried the "kids are nice" thing on club and it didn't work at all. apparently the kids in his family and his friends' kids are all satan spawn.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

This is why I also believe in original sin.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I thought that the old view that Pelagius denied the Fall and thus original sin had been discredited, and that it was mainly an Augustinian straw horse adopted by later heretics who adopted the Pelagian description. There are some letter of Pelagius that I believe were translated about 15 or 20 years ago that instead suggest that he though the innate goodness given by God in the creation survived the Fall, so that while now born with sin we are also born with the free will to refuse sin.

In other words, was Pelagius what you call a semi-Pelagian?

I don't buy that Augustinianism is straight-up grace, but instead see it as grace+free well, with both needed (but will agree that Evang. proddies are the last grace-only extremists out there, just think that to the extent they attribute it to Augustine, that's crazy).

As a matter of fact, I have a mother in law who fears my influence on the grandchildren because I see grace as playing into the equation; she views Catholicism and Augustinianism as all about free will and me as dreadfully unorthodox. She believes, I think very much like Pelagius, that to the extent grace comes into the equation it is fully accessible to all.


By the way, I couldn't get the video. I'll check it out at home.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

My point on what you just quoted was that collective morality and selfish morality are the same. As far as proving divinity, as I have stated ad nauseaum, that position can't be proved, it is very weak, but it is the best of the three weak possiblities.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Thats not true. You can amass tons of anthropological studies and historical evidence to prove that people developed morality as a result of instinct and evolutionary pressures, which are largely selfish (directed toward keeping yourself alive). You can't prove a stitch of the divine morality theory.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

When he says "the best" he means "the best in my opinion, which cannot be changed". Let it go. The wall is hard.

Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal
 

OK - so you have to agree on the parts of the moral code that are relative to your discussion on morality. So in other words if you are talking about polygamy, you need to agree on the part of the code that discusses polygamy, but no others. That is valid.

I use the introductory clause because if both participants to the converation believe morality is all based on selfishness (which is commonly held belief among may Atheists and Agnostics), then you do have a basis for morality and you don't need a code. The discussion of polygamy and killing would then revolve around the issue over whether such rules if enforced would be in the interest of the participants of the conversation.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Quite possibly, though Pelagianism, as an identifier of a (heretical) doctrine, still means the denial of original sin.

Then again, I'm a bit of a universal salvationist myself (to the extent I'd adhere to Christianity at all), so I'm hardly doctrine girl.
Don't rush home for it - it's amusing, but that's about it. (Unless you collect nutjob rantings for fun. Oh, wait, you hang out here, so ... by all means, rush home!)

More fun crap to watch while bored before a holiday weekend: Everyone's favorite dancing cadet -

http://www.glumbert.com/media/dancewhiteboy.html

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have stated over and over I agree with what you just said. The problem is that if a random mutation that helps us survive is the only source of morality then we face a few problems:

All morality is relative (or in other words there is no morality but morality is just an ill defined word used to cloud the fact that all decisions of right and wrong are really based on self interest).

If all morality is relative organization like Amnesty International are futile at best and utterly ignorant and out of line at worst. There is no such thing as international human rights, and trying to enforce them is really you just trying to impose your random moral ideas on another culture, which has developed other moral ideas that have worked just fine to help that culture survive.

Discussion groups like this board are really futile because we have no common moral base. The only discussion on this board that would makes sense, is that for every political proposition that was discussed, people would posit whether or not such position was in their self interest or not. Every political proposal would either be in your self interest or not. Everything else is irrelevant.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

So you believe in an afterlife, you consider youself a partial Christian, and at the same time you think all morality is relative?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I think kids are nice because generally they are taught to be nice. If you taught them otherwise, they would not be.

Let me ask you this. Do you think "kids" of other species are nice? Take dolphins for instance. Most are "nice." However, there are some sects (I think in the northern pacific ocean) that are not. They are cold blooded killers. Apparently, it is a dolphin cultural thing.