we humans are disgusting

[Revoltingest]

In every morally advanced society, rape of a 5-year-old child will be considered immoral and outlawed.

So we agree that the objectiveness of facts (or the truth of propositions) does not depend on all societies at all times agreeing with the fact or proposition.

Now, what is your argument that the proposition, “rape of a 5-year-old is immoral” is relative to societies? Name a current, morally advanced society that condones such rape (or murder, assault, or theft).

I don't disagree that we have common tendencies for morality.
Where we differ is in the origins.
You would say that it's universal & objective.
I would say it's only an emergent property of evolution & society,
which is more probabilistic, ie, that it will vary, sometimes greatly.

The upshot of all this is that while you & I might even share the
very same values (morals), I see them as just the result of
genetics & environment. They're not truth or anything absolute.

 

[Nous]

If I thought this discussion was really about facts

The fact that you cannot substantiate your claims is no one’s fault but your own. Your assertion that raising and using animals is more efficient and environmentally beneficial than using those resources to raise plant foods for human consumption is simply false, directly contradicted by well-established facts presented in the scientific literature.

Your idea that some archeologist deduced from archeological evidence that humans “evolved . . . to have something between 30 and 60 percent animal protein and fat in our diets” is ridiculous.

 

[Nous]

I don't disagree that we have common tendencies for morality.
Where we differ is in the origins.
You would say that it's universal & objective.

I haven’t used the term “universal” or "absolute"--you have used these terms, and I’m not exactly sure what you mean by them.

I have asserted that there are objective moral facts, by which I mean that such facts (or the truth of moral propositions, such as “rape is immoral”) are not mere human inventions and are not contingent upon the pronouncements of any society.

I have not made any claims about “origins” (“origins” of what?). If the issue of “origins” (of something) is somehow determinative of the objectiveness of moral propositions, then what is the “origin” of the fact stated by the Uncertainty Principle? Or of the fact proven by the Pythagorean theorem?

The upshot of all this is that while you & I might even share the
very same values (morals), I see them as just the result of
genetics & environment.

What distinction are you making here? How would you go about determining whether a moral proposition refers to an objective fact, as opposed to “just the result of genetics & environment”?

After all, you’ve repeatedly asserted that moral precepts are relative to societies. But there is little reason to believe that differences in genes account for such differences in behavior between the ancient Greeks or Aztecs and Americans today. Actually, there is very little evidence of major genetic contributions to broad categories of behavior. Such genetic “theories” of behavior might easily fall in line with racism.

Certainly no moral realist denies the influence of environment on people’s moral behavior.

BTW, do you generally treat people as though there is no truth to the Golden Rule, that one should treat others as one wishes to be treated by others? If you don't generally treat others in disobedience to the Golden Rule, then why not? After all, you could make a lot of legal money by lying (etc.).

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven’t used the term “universal” or "absolute"--you have used these terms, and I’m not exactly sure what you mean by them.

They're words which I thought accurately described your view of morality.
As I use them....
"Universal" means that something transcends time & place.
"Absolute" means that it doesn't vary from person to person, or society to society....much like how 2+2=4 for everyone...except for me until high school. (By then I was getting it right.)
Is this correct?

I have asserted that there are objective moral facts, by which I mean that such facts (or the truth of moral propositions, such as “rape is immoral”) are not mere human inventions and are not contingent upon the pronouncements of any society.

I'd say they're human inventions because of more than just non-universality in our societies, but also because in the animal world, rape is common. I recently saw a video about a dominant male lion raping a female whose pride tried (& failed) to take territory from his. Such is lion morality. Other examples abound.

I have not made any claims about “origins” (“origins” of what?). If the issue of “origins” (of something) is somehow determinative of the objectiveness of moral propositions, then what is the “origin” of the fact stated by the Uncertainty Principle? Or of the fact proven by the Pythagorean theorem?

I referred to the origins of morality (as I see things) as an explanation which is material & stochastic.
This was to show why there is variation in moralities among people.

What distinction are you making here?

This is to find common ground about what our morality is.
Even though we differ about its nature, we'll agree about what is right & wrong (largely).

How would you go about determining whether a moral proposition refers to an objective fact, as opposed to “just the result of genetics & environment”?

I'd examine the premises for deducing the conclusion.
Are the premises objectively verifiable under all circumstances?
If so, I'd call that "objective".

After all, you’ve repeatedly asserted that moral precepts are relative to societies. But there is little reason to believe that differences in genes account for such differences in behavior between the ancient Greeks or Aztecs and Americans today. Actually, there is very little evidence of major genetic contributions to broad categories of behavior. Such genetic “theories” of behavior might easily fall in line with racism.

The differences come not from genes (IMO), but from the uniquely different circumstances of each society.
Genes are what make different moralities as similar as they are, ie, they determine basic tendencies we all share.

BTW, do you generally treat people as though there is no truth to the Golden Rule, that one should treat others as one wishes to be treated by others?

I like the Golden Rule.
But I see it as useful rather than "true".
This doesn't make it any less important to me.

If you don't generally treat others in disobedience to the Golden Rule, then why not? After all, you could make a lot of legal money by lying (etc.).

I hold the values I hold, even though they aren't universally true.

 

[Lyndon]

Meat eating is a morally bankrupt position that involves killing innocent animals for one's won eating pleasure, how is killing for pleasure moral?????

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The fact that you cannot substantiate your claims is no one’s fault but your own. Your assertion that raising and using animals is more efficient and environmentally beneficial than using those resources to raise plant foods for human consumption is simply false, directly contradicted by well-established facts presented in the scientific literature.

Your idea that some archeologist deduced from archeological evidence that humans “evolved . . . to have something between 30 and 60 percent animal protein and fat in our diets” is ridiculous.

Because this is a discussion about values, I gave up on presenting "evidence" to you, because it's meaningless to you. Your "evidence" does not support your total elimination of animals from agriculture or our diets, either. It's a preference, pure and simple--a question of values. And, you claim some higher moral position based on values I do not share. I don't find it particularly productive to argue values and preferences: Red cars are better! No, Blue cars are better! Pointless.

However, I earlier in the thread posted a link to a wikipedia article about cultured meat, meat grown essentially in a vat, with no nerves or organs of "animal" there. In your world of moral absolutism, is it immoral to eat cultured meat that does not involving raising or killing an animal? The wikipedia article is biased toward this technology, of course, but consider the purported environmental and moral advantages it suggests. if it is immoral, what makes it immoral?

 

[McBell]

Meat eating is a morally bankrupt position that involves killing innocent animals for one's won eating pleasure, how is killing for pleasure moral?????

Another bold empty claim.
When are you going to present an argument?

 

[Lyndon]

When are you going to go away?? Or contribute anything of value???

 

[McBell]

When are you going to go away?? Or contribute anything of value???

Right back at you.

I noticed you once again completely ignore the point of the post you replied to....

 

[wizanda]

Meat eating is a morally bankrupt position that involves killing innocent animals for one's won eating pleasure, how is killing for pleasure moral?????

CauS n Dem Der Bible, it do say so!

 

[Chakra]

Right back at you.

Unfortunately, you're in no position to say that. You haven't presented anything besides "What a empty bold claim!" to everything we've said. Sure, maybe we didn't link any studies or research, but honestly, it seems that you haven't done any research yourself. I say this will complete respect.

"Meat eating is a morally bankrupt position that involves killing innocent animals for one's won eating pleasure, how is killing for pleasure moral?????"

So, this is an empty claim to you? Well, we can clearly get our nutrients from plant based sources, get the same taste and texture, and even remain healthier on a plant based diet. There's only four reason why people in the affluent western regions eat meat...convenience, taste, habit, and tradition. It has been clearly proven that you don't need to kill animals (which are innocent) for any reason (besides pleasure). Here's my argument; at least now you have something to refute.

 

[Nous]

They're words which I thought accurately described your view of morality.
As I use them....
"Universal" means that something transcends time & place.
"Absolute" means that it doesn't vary from person to person, or society to society....much like how 2+2=4 for everyone...except for me until high school. (By then I was getting it right.)
Is this correct?

I don't make such claims, as far as I can tell. Moral realism, which is what I argue, is the thesis that there are propositions that express objective moral facts. It isn't a thesis about how people do behave; it isn't a thesis about how people ought to behave; it isn't a thesis about what people believe.

I believe it would save confusion if, rather than using the word "morality," you would specify whether you are referring to propositions, or acts or behavior (or perhaps even some set of beliefs).

I'd say they're human inventions because of more than just non-universality in our societies, but also because in the animal world, rape is common. I recently saw a video about a dominant male lion raping a female whose pride tried (& failed) to take territory from his. Such is lion morality.

How did someone determine that this was an act of rape?

In any case, I take you it you likewise object to human rapists being prosecute, convicted and confined to prisons for some period of time. Obviously lions don't do any of that.

I referred to the origins of morality (as I see things) as an explanation which is material & stochastic.

Come again? Your explanation of "the origins of morality" is stochastic? What do you mean? (And what does the word "morality" in your sentence refer to--moral acts, beliefs about moral acts, propositions about acts?)

I like the Golden Rule.
But I see it as useful rather than "true".

The Golden Rule, if you abide by it, only constrains your behavior. How is it "useful"? It isn't useful for getting you more money than you would get by not abiding by it, therefore it isn't useful for getting you laid more often. The lion you mentioned above had no use for the Golden Rule. If he had obeyed this rule, he wouldn't have had as much fun.

I hold the values I hold

I want to know why. Again, to abide by moral precepts only constrains one's behavior. You win more games by cheating at poker.

 

[Nous]

Because this is a discussion about values, I gave up on presenting "evidence" to you

Again, the only reason that you cannot substantiate your ignorant claims about the greater efficiency and environmental benefit of raising and using animals rather than using those resources to raise plant foods for human consumption, and that humans evolved to eat a diet consisting of 30-60% animal protein and fat, is because they are ridiculously false.

I substantiated my claims from the peer-reviewed literature. You should try that sometime.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Again, the only reason that you cannot substantiate your ignorant claims about the greater efficiency and environmental benefit of raising and using animals rather than using those resources to raise plant foods for human consumption, and that humans evolved to eat a diet consisting of 30-60% animal protein and fat, is because they are ridiculously false.

I substantiated my claims from the peer-reviewed literature. You should try that sometime.

The fact that you continue to use terms like "ignorant claims" and "ridiculously false" in a discussion about VALUES is that emotion is all you've got. You confuse "can't" for "won't." I won't waste the effort providing you with facts because it has become quite obvious that citing facts is irrelevant to you. You won't accept anyone else's offered evidence, you won't even look at it to verify it, and then you clip and paste a few sections of sources that don't really support your position that well; certainly, they do not call of a total ban on using animals and consuming meat--only for ending our current unsustainable industrial agricultural practices--which is something that I agree with. But apparently you can't accept that, either.

But your conclusion--that humans should stop using animals and eating meat--comes from your values, not from your facts And while you profess to draw on Moral Realism, that covers an awful lot of territory; it's not like it's a single consistent or coherent moral position. What is the source of your moral facts? How does one recognize them, and know them to be facts? Interestingly enough, there are moral realists who do not have any problem with using animals and eating meat; there is certainly nothing inherent in moral realism that leads to veganism.

Anyway, I don't recognize that there are universal moral facts: they cannot be objectively, empirically, identified and tested in the manner of science. What there are in this universe is facts that have to do with conditions in the material world, none of which have anything to do with what "should" be. Values--our moral and other preferences, our "shoulds"--arise from what we would like the world to be like...not how it actually is, nor other ways it might actually be preferred by others. And, as with moral realism, there are people who operate from moral relativism who eat meat, and some who are vegans.

So let me ask, exactly what kinds of "facts" would you find acceptable that would cause you to abandon your extremist moral realism values? Some fact or facts that I could point out to you, that you would say, "You're absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong: eating meat is okay." Do you think any such facts exists? I don't think so, because your values (and mine) are not grounded in facts, but in personal, emotional preferences about the state of the world.

What "facts" of yours would I find acceptable, to cause me to abandon my relativistic moral values? Do you think such facts exist? I don't think so.

Because values--morals--have no factual, empirical basis.

 

[kiwimac]

We humans are super omnivores, which means that there is very little we cannot eat. Our diet can and should contain a variety of things, including some meats, for optimal health.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't make such claims, as far as I can tell. Moral realism, which is what I argue, is the thesis that there are propositions that express objective moral facts. It isn't a thesis about how people do behave; it isn't a thesis about how people ought to behave; it isn't a thesis about what people believe.

How people ought to behave just doesn't appear to be objective though.

In many societies, honor killings are the norm.
I think they're evil.
Why are they objectively immoral, & why am I objectively right (or vice versa)?

In many societies, slavery is/was the norm.
In ours it isn't.
Once again, we face the question about how objectivity is employed to say one is factually moral & the other isn't.

I believe it would save confusion if, rather than using the word "morality," you would specify whether you are referring to propositions, or acts or behavior (or perhaps even some set of beliefs).

I don't understand this.
It's hard to avoid using the word, "morality", when the topic is exactly that.

How did someone determine that this was an act of rape?

In this particular case, the male chased down & mounted a very unwilling & angry female from the other pride.
As evidence of his hostile intent, when he chased down a male in the same raiding pride, he slashed open
the male's genitals. Clearly, both were cases of unwanted sexual contact.

In any case, I take you it you likewise object to human rapists being prosecute, convicted and confined to prisons for some period of time. Obviously lions don't do any of that.

Your grammar is confusing, I'll just state.....
I believe rapists should be caught, prosecuted, & imprisoned if found guilty.

Come again? Your explanation of "the origins of morality" is stochastic? What do you mean? (And what does the word "morality" in your sentence refer to--moral acts, beliefs about moral acts, propositions about acts?)

Please excuse me if I use an arcane word as though it were common.
I'm a recovering engineer, so I use terminology which is familiar.
For ref.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
I see morality as analogous to other emergent properties (general processes & tendencies which arise) in the natural world.
These are system responses which are observable, but not entirely predictable because of random or chaotic elements.
Examples:
Economics, evolution, behavior of gases
Morality behaves much the same way in that we see general tendencies (aka emergent properties) which see variation on the micro & macro levels.

The Golden Rule, if you abide by it, only constrains your behavior. How is it "useful"? It isn't useful for getting you more money than you would get by not abiding by it, therefore it isn't useful for getting you laid more often. The lion you mentioned above had no use for the Golden Rule. If he had obeyed this rule, he wouldn't have had as much fun.

This is a very large issue.
"Useful" is that which serves survival.
For humans, we survive better if we strike a productive balance between cooperation & competition.
The Golden Rule allows us to do this with minimal social strife & loss of life & limb.
As for the lion's raping & mutilating the invading pride, this is their version of war.
Normally, lion prides will respect each other's territory, but starvation changed the rules.
If there's only enuf food for one to survive, they will fight because circumstances changed to make this more "useful" than respecting territory.

I want to know why. Again, to abide by moral precepts only constrains one's behavior. You win more games by cheating at poker.

I am the way I am because of genetics & environment.
Had I grown up in rural Afghanistan, I'd likely hold different values.

If winning at a single poker game were life's goal, then cheating would make sense....if one doesn't get caught.
But life is full of many activities, & if one is a cheater, one will be either beaten to a bloody pulp, or excluded from the game.
So playing honestly has its advantages.
And evolution likely selects for this trait.....generally.

 

[McBell]

Unfortunately, you're in no position to say that.

Except that I did...

You haven't presented anything besides "What a empty bold claim!" to everything we've said. Sure, maybe we didn't link any studies or research, but honestly, it seems that you haven't done any research yourself. I say this will complete respect.

Ouch.
You really do need to go back and read the thread.
Try to not miss my posts this time....

So, this is an empty claim to you?

Yes it is

Well, we can clearly get our nutrients from plant based sources, get the same taste and texture, and even remain healthier on a plant based diet. There's only four reason why people in the affluent western regions eat meat...convenience, taste, habit, and tradition. It has been clearly proven that you don't need to kill animals (which are innocent) for any reason (besides pleasure). Here's my argument; at least now you have something to refute.

I eat meat because I like to eat meat.

Is it your claim that eating meat when one does not "need" to eat meat is what makes eating meat immoral?
Do you also apply the same logic to killing innocent plants?

Looks to me like a blatant double standard.

 

[Nous]

The fact that you continue to use terms like "ignorant claims" and "ridiculously false"

Because your claims--that raising and using animals is more efficient and environmentally beneficial than using those resources to raise plant foods, and that humans evolved to "have" 30-60% animal protein and fat in our diet--are ignorant, directly contradicted by the facts presented in the scientific literature, and are plainly illogical.

You won't accept anyone else's offered evidence

What evidence are you talking about? Quote any evidence presented here from the scientific literature that has contradicted anything I've said.

 

[Nous]

In many societies, honor killings are the norm.
I think they're evil.

Why do you think honor killings are "evil"? It certainly seems to me that the adjective "evil" implies some sort of moral wrong.

I don't understand this.
It's hard to avoid using the word, "morality", when the top is exactly that.

I don't think I have used the word "morality". All I'm asking is that you specify whether you are referring to a proposition, a set of beliefs, a moral code, or a particular act or set of acts, when you use the word.

In this particular case, the male chased down & mounted a very unwilling & angry female from the other pride.

Where did you see this? Can you provide a link? Did someone else (the narrator?) refer to this incident as "rape"?

Every lion mating I've seen, the female crouches down. I'm finding what you describe hard to imagine (even though I have a well-developed pornographic imagination).

I believe rapists should be caught, prosecuted, & imprisoned if found guilty.

Why do you wish that rapists should be caught, prosecuted and imprisoned--for doing something that, according to you, is not really wrong (except for silly social conventions).

It is interesting to me that you seem to have a major issue about the "origins of morality" (whatever you mean by "morality" there), but haven't addressed my question about the origins of the fact that the Uncertainty Principle is about, or the fact proven by the Pythagorean theorem.

 

[Nous]

We humans are super omnivores

Yeah, I guess that's why meat-eaters have higher risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, various cancers, and higher mortality rates than vegetarians and vegans.