Daviso452
Boy Genius
But then you are subject to confirmation bias and placebo effect. You expect something, and your body forces you to experience it. Then you apply that to your beliefs and you don't consider the opposite side.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Morality
- Thread starter Sleeppy
- Start date
But then you are subject to confirmation bias and placebo effect. You expect something, and your body forces you to experience it. Then you apply that to your beliefs and you don't consider the opposite side.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
That doesn't sound right. Everyone has expectations, it doesn't always result in a placebo effect. I'm not sure that happens often.
Isn't the placebo effect when patients react as though they had actually taken medicine? If so, that's not a good analogy. That's like saying I went expecting miracles, and because of that I actually experienced them.. Simply due to expectation it manifested the reality.
Daviso452
Boy Genius
Yes, the placebo effect is mainly associated with medicine, but its implications extend beyond that. And in fact, what you said was true. Some people expecting miracles do in fact trick their brain into experiencing something that some may interpret as a miracle.
I had read a study that had interviewed several people who had experienced odd "coincidences" that they had associated with God. After fact-checking their stories, it turned out that a good number of them had imagined things about that day. It wasn't a majority, but something like 30% of them did. Their minds had tampered with their memory in order to fit what they believed. This isn't Placebo exactly, but it is an example of the faults of the mind.
It's been a while and I've forgotten the exact data, but I'll post the study when I find it.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I'm not surprised.
The Body Odd - 70 years without eating? 'Starving yogi' says it's true
Doctors Baffled by Prahlad Jani, Man Who Doesn't Eat or Drink - ABC News
While I believe it's possible for a man to go without food or water, I don't automatically think this case is true.
Daviso452
Boy Genius
Not quite sure what this has to do with what I was talking about...
I will say though please disregard my last post. There are a lot of confusing things going on. Bottom line, I'm not sure how legit the existence of the article is. I may have been horribly deluded in believing it was real, or possibly got different articles mixed up, or any number of things. I'll just say this situation is complicated.
In any case, I can't seem to verify it, so just ignore its existence.
But my first point is still valid. People are able to trick their bodies into experiencing something false. Placebo. When this happens, they could immediately think that is god, without truly considering other natural explanations. Forer. Finally, instead of attempting to prove what they experienced was false, they use it as their own personal evidence for the existence of God. Confirmation bias.
I have no idea how often this happens, or even at all. But is indeed highly probable that this could happen. Many arguments I hear have appeared incredibly likely to be a result of this process. Does that make sense?
p.s. No, I'm not going insane. I'm just incredibly confused. Hopefully I can get things explained and make sense.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Daviso452
Boy Genius
You say it as if there is objective morality.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
No. I understand what you're saying. I agree. But, if you really get into it, just about anything can actually be delusory. Even looking in the mirror, we know, is deceiving. Remember that movie with Jim Carrey, where he's unknowingly the star of a TV show? Unless you're all-knowing, you really don't know much. You're led wherever your senses take you. They could be wrong, or inaccurate, or easily fooled. Even if you went to school and learned every subject there is, everything you know is someone else's method - and it could be a clever distraction. Who's to say our senses are completely backwards or forwards or sideways? I agree, that we are unknowing. I also agree with doing whatever seems to work. There's really no way of knowing the complete efficiency of an action, unless you are all-knowing in that particular reality.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Heh, good thing legality is objectively based.
You kill a man, you go to jail.
In other countries, you die.
Does it make it wrong?
filthy tugboat
Active Member
Because legality does not define morality nor is it the extent of morality. Legality and morality are separate and one does not define or necessarily encompass the other.
But what is legal is a form of morality. It's objective as it doesn't rely on the subjective morality of it's citizens i.e. you can't get away with murder if you think it's right.
filthy tugboat
Active Member
Is it? I don't think so. Moderating and/or judging behavior is not always a form of morality. Morality is about interactions with other people, the laws in many countries deal with issues that are not always about interacting with others.
Law can be objective(it's enforcement is not necessarily so but that is as I'm sure you'll agree beside the point). It isn't necessarily a moral system though, parts of it may promote a moral system but in it's entirety it is not a moral system.
Daviso452
Boy Genius
That is why we are skeptical. Too many people have made claims in which they something is impossible, like complexity. But in order for you to know for sure, you must be omniscient, which no human is. And so we are skeptical about how valid this person's claim is.
Since no one is all-knowing, we devised a way to test how valid their claim is. That is science. And the thing about science is that it is self-correcting. It accounts for our lack of perfect knowledge. That is why we use it. If you go and experience a miracle, you must be all-knowing to know for a fact that it was a miracle, and not something else. Just because you cannot think of anything else does not make you right. That is why we employ science, because it tells us the truth.
One last thing. I referred to science as an "it," and many people do. Please do not be confused by that. I do not literally think science is a "thing;" it is a process. That is what I mean when I refer to science as an "it". The process known as science weeds out the inaccuracies and false statements. If not at first, then definitely later. It just takes time.
Could you give me an example of a law that wouldn't be a part of a 'moral system'
Orias
Left Hand Path
Yes it does.
Illegal things are "wrong" legal things are "right". Regardless of whether or not they are followed, consequences will arise on behalf of the judge.
Legality is a judgement of what is "right" and "just". Whether or not you disagree with the notion it is a fact in the real world and is something the individual has no control of.
Even if they think its all "wrong".
Daviso452
Boy Genius
But what moral is it based off of? The want for justice and equality? Just because people agree on it does not make it objective. There can be objective parts for a given moral (such as no killing, stealing, etc.), but the moral itself is subjective. We want a better world. That doesn't mean that it has to be.
Orias
Left Hand Path
I agree.
Most forms of "morality" are nothing more than fanciful ideals, feathered down by the judgement of the political philosophers.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
No, it would obviously be rape and exploitation of a dependent. Children lack the independence and maturity to fully understand and give informed consent.
It's an example of an extremely poor character and disturbed psychological state. It's highly unhealthy from a mental/emotional standpoint. However, it's "acceptable" as far as no innocent people were actually victimized.
Animals cannot give consent due to their lack of sapience and inability to rationalize. Therefore it would be abuse and exploitation.
No, as it was a sapient individual.
No. To betray the loyalty and unconditional love of a dog reflects a lack of humanity.
No, it's obviously incompetent and neglectful parenting that will impact the child's psychological development and emotional health.
/thread
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How young is very young?
6 years old, or 13 years old?
Is Tom an adult?
Yes. No harm done.
No. The dog can't give consent.
No.
No. I consider eating/killing an animal like a dog to be repugnant.
Yes. If the girl is getting all the basic needs it is acceptable, even though it may not be in the best interest of the child to stay with this mother.
Last edited:
filthy tugboat
Active Member
The illegality of smoking marijuana. The Legal precedence of holding someone in a mental health institute of any variety after attempting suicide.
These are two examples that are not about morality. Especially if, in the marijuana case it is grown by the individual and smoked by the individual in question.