Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Audie]

I do wish our creationists would at least
get over the thing about Pasteur.

. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically
proved by Dr. Pasteur.

It is really something how much can be gotten
wrong in one short sentence!

For those who dont know:
First, science does not do proof.
Second, Pasteur proved nothing.

What he did do was test a few specific
sets of circumstances-experiments-and
none of them worked.

In the process he persuaded many people
that flies cannot grow spontaneously from
rotten meat.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Saving the kids was the right thing to do. And right and moral are synonyms.
I found great synonyms for "moral" on the new Thesaurus.com!
You can't break up saving the kids into two acts, one of which is immoral.

ROTFL. Never said a moral act should be interpreted by consensus. I said the moral act is the one that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and people in it.

If I was in a position to kill that terrorist before he managed to blow up the children I would do it because it would be the right and moral thing to do. The question is: Would you have killed the terrorist? Of course not since your moral rule is THOU SHALT DO NO HARM with no exceptions and you would have done him harm. How would you explain that to the parents of the children? All I can say is thank God that more saner minds prevail.

Let me try again. A moral act is an act that is right, good, and moral 99.9% of the time, only because nothing is perfect. This should not be determined by consensus after the action(unless it is YOU alone that determines the morality of your actions). What should be determined is if the action is a moral action, or a morally JUSTIFIABLE action. This should be determined before the commission of the act. Since we are justifying the act itself, it must not be a moral act. Otherwise anyone killing anyone, could claim that this action is moral. Why is this so difficult? Why do you think we have laws that make people criminally responsible for this particular action? The "core" definition of a moral act is to do no harm, or the least amount of harm. Therefore, as long as your action do not cause harm, it is a moral act, in all cases or circumstances. Extending this core principle to include, causing harm to prevent further harm, only demonstrates your own self-serving biases, and lends itself to abuses(lynching, waterboarding, assassinations).

I would certainly take the shot, as any other rational person would. But the difference between us, is that I would know that my actions were immoral, and would feel a sense of remorse that I was force to kill another human being. Somehow I feel that you would feel no remorse, and sleep like a baby. I could be wrong but lets see what kind of a mind-set I'm dealing with.

A clearly guilty rapist/killer of 5 small children, was released by the court on a minor technicality. The "moral" members of the local neighbourhood watch, and members of the police department decided to litter the streets and billboards with his photo and address. They wanted to make sure everyone in the community knew who he was, what he had done, and where he lived. Two weeks later, he was found with his privates remove, hands bound behind his back, and hanging from a bell tower. The police after 1 week of a thorough investigation determine that it must have been suicide due to moral guilt. My question is, do you think that the posting of information about this person was a moral action, or an immoral action? Do you think that the community should in anyway be morally responsible for the obvious outcome? Who said social empathy was dying?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

OK, for my understanding, a justifiable, excusable, and necessary act will be moral. You cannot have a necessary immoral act.

Well, I would argue that mathematics and logic also do not exist independently of humans.



So the subjective attitudes we have are objectively defined? Interesting take on things.

If you are on the battlefield, and you shoot and kill the enemy, then the act of killing would be excusable. If you were being attacked by a person threatening you and your family with a gun, and you kill that person defending yourself and your family, then the act of killing would be justifiable. If you stopped to aid a dying animal that was hit by a vehicle, then the act of killing would be necessary. The point is if killing in itself is a moral act, then there is no need for it to be justifiable, excusable, or necessary. This is because the act is an evil and immoral in itself.

Are you seriously arguing that the laws and principles in nature are dependent on human presence? Really! I think that the fusion process in our sun will continue to shine long after we become extinct. 1 + 1 will always equal 2, whether we are here or not. Do you think that the math and physics explaining the principles of Gravity, will cease to exist if humans were to disappear? Do you think that the principles of logic that supports our ability to inductively and deductively reason, is dependent on our presence? Do you think that no other life form on this planet, or any another planet, would have access to logical reasoning? Do you think that logic is exclusive only to humans? Although the principles of math and logic are mental constructs, these constructs exist as part of our objective reality. They are like energy. It may need to be used to exist, but these precepts still exists.

Please don't misrepresent my comments. I said that our personality, attitudes, experiences, thoughts, and actions, are all based on the expressions of our objective genes, hormones, and alleles. How they are expressed will determine the internal and external composition of our persona. Therefore, our subjective attitude(redundant) is NOT objectively defined, it is simply explained and objectively controlled by our genes and hormones. The only subjective control we have, is to NOT act.

 

[Polymath257]

If you are on the battlefield, and you shoot and kill the enemy, then the act of killing would be excusable. If you were being attacked by a person threatening you and your family with a gun, and you kill that person defending yourself and your family, then the act of killing would be justifiable. If you stopped to aid a dying animal that was hit by a vehicle, then the act of killing would be necessary. The point is if killing in itself is a moral act, then there is no need for it to be justifiable, excusable, or necessary. This is because the act is an evil and immoral in itself.

And I disagree. Once it becomes necessary, it is moral *in that case*.

Are you seriously arguing that the laws and principles in nature are dependent on human presence? Really! I think that the fusion process in our sun will continue to shine long after we become extinct.

I agree with this. The actions of the physical universe are not subject to human presence.

1 + 1 will always equal 2, whether we are here or not.

Mathematics is a *language*. It is a formal language that we invent to help us understand the universe. But, for example, there are systems where 1+1=0. Also, the rules of addition are not always *applicable* to the real world. Whether they are true in the real world is determined by observation and testing.

Do you think that the math and physics explaining the principles of Gravity, will cease to exist if humans were to disappear?

Math is different than physics. math is the *language*.

Do you think that the principles of logic that supports our ability to inductively and deductively reason, is dependent on our presence?

Yes. In short, they are conventions of language. It is fully possible to invent and use other logical systems. In some cases, they can even work better.

Do you think that no other life form on this planet, or any another planet, would have access to logical reasoning? Do you think that logic is exclusive only to humans? Although the principles of math and logic are mental constructs, these constructs exist as part of our objective reality. They are like energy. It may need to be used to exist, but these precepts still exists.

I disagree. Math is no more 'objective' than language is. There is nothing inherent in a cat that makes the word 'cat' appropriate for that animal. There is nothing inherent in the universe that requires our particular formalization of logic.

And yes, I would fully expect another species to have a different system of logic: there is more than one that can work, after all. And math is even less likely to be universal in that sense.

Please don't misrepresent my comments. I said that our personality, attitudes, experiences, thoughts, and actions, are all based on the expressions of our objective genes, hormones, and alleles. How they are expressed will determine the internal and external composition of our persona. Therefore, our subjective attitude(redundant) is NOT objectively defined, it is simply explained and objectively controlled by our genes and hormones. The only subjective control we have, is to NOT act.

Hmmm....not just on our genes, etc. Learning and experience also have a lot to do with attitudes, etc. There is a non-trivial social component to all of these which makes them non-objective.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

But that doesn't make our preferences objective. Also, the process of evolution doesn't select for objectively moral outcomes. It selects for increased fitness.



That's not what objective means. Just because you can't control your subjective preferences does not make them any less subjective. Objective means it is independent of humans, and our preferences are obviously not independent of ourselves.



But will that moral code be the same for all species? I don't think it would.



The very fact that morality would be different for different species demonstrates how subjective they are.

Again, please stop misrepresenting what I say. It is intellectually dishonest. I've said there is no such thing as objective morality. So why do you keep mentioning it? "Make our preferences objective", and "objectively moral outcomes". You are simply arguing with your made-up straw man, not with me. Why are you confusing objective morality with the evolution of our selective and instinctive traits? There are many other factors that determine subjective morality within our species. Our evolved genetic make-up is just one of those factors. I have already mentioned that how these traits and instincts are expressed, will produce different moral actions from different species. You simply ignored my examples of the shark pups killing their siblings within the womb. Or the male lion committing infanticide to bring the females into oestrous.. All demonstrating that morality is relative, but whose actions are still controlled by our objective genes. Do you think that these animals subjectively consider that their actions are moral or immoral? If we didn't have self-awareness we wouldn't either, or know the difference.

The word, "objective" has many different meanings, and your definition is meaningless. From the puppets perspective, is the puppet master objectively controlling its movements? Is the puppet master independent of his puppet? Are our genes independent from our subjective awareness? Are we unaware of our normal internal processes? I will reserve my comments until I know what you mean by "objective", including an example. Existing independent of humans, is only a "gap-filling" explanation that seems meaningless to me. For example, when you see a red light anywhere in the world, you would know to stop. This would be an example of an objective understanding of road rules. If you stand on a digital scales, the scales would display an objective weight. These are my understanding of what objective means. So lets hear yours.

 

[dfnj]

Again, please stop misrepresenting what I say. It is intellectually dishonest. I've said there is no such thing as objective morality. So why do you keep mentioning it? "Make our preferences objective", and "objectively moral outcomes". You are simply arguing with your made-up straw man, not with me. Why are you confusing objective morality with the evolution of our selective and instinctive traits? There are many other factors that determine subjective morality within our species. Our evolved genetic make-up is just one of those factors. I have already mentioned that how these traits and instincts are expressed, will produce different moral actions from different species. You simply ignored my examples of the shark pups killing their siblings within the womb. Or the male lion committing infanticide to bring the females into oestrous.. All demonstrating that morality is relative, but whose actions are still controlled by our objective genes. Do you think that these animals subjectively consider that their actions are moral or immoral? If we didn't have self-awareness we wouldn't either, or know the difference.

The word, "objective" has many different meanings, and your definition is meaningless. From the puppets perspective, is the puppet master objectively controlling its movements? Is the puppet master independent of his puppet? Are our genes independent from our subjective awareness? Are we unaware of our normal internal processes? I will reserve my comments until I know what you mean by "objective", including an example. Existing independent of humans, is only a "gap-filling" explanation that seems meaningless to me. For example, when you see a red light anywhere in the world, you would know to stop. This would be an example of an objective understanding of road rules. If you stand on a digital scales, the scales would display an objective weight. These are my understanding of what objective means. So lets hear yours.

All good objectivity is determined by subjectivity.

Your post reminds me of story where you are the Zen master and the guy you are responding to is one of the monks:

One day two monks were in a garden arguing subjectivity versus objectivity. The Zen master hearing them arguing approached the two students. The Zen master asked, "that rock over there, does that exist inside your head or outside your head?". One of the monks looked up at the Zen master and replied, "Well, our religious bible tells us that all truth is subjective so that rock over there only exists inside my head." At which point the Zen master replies, "Then it must be pretty heavy all day walking around with that rock in your head!"

 

[Audie]

Prease exprain

 

[ArtieE]

Let me try again. A moral act is an act that is right, good, and moral 99.9% of the time, only because nothing is perfect.

Does that mean that a moral act is an act that is immoral 0.1% of the time?

This should not be determined by consensus after the action

Of course not. You have to determine which action is moral before you act.

(unless it is YOU alone that determines the morality of your actions).

I don't "determine" the morality. What determines the morality of the action is whether the action is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental action. If so it's moral.

What should be determined is if the action is a moral action, or a morally JUSTIFIABLE action. This should be determined before the commission of the act.

Of course. Never said otherwise.

Since we are justifying the act itself, it must not be a moral act. Otherwise anyone killing anyone, could claim that this action is moral.

And if that action was the most beneficial/least detrimental action under the circumstances they would be right. If not, they would be wrong.

Why is this so difficult?

It isn't. You just make it difficult.

Why do you think we have laws that make people criminally responsible for this particular action?

People aren't criminally responsible for moral killings, only immoral ones. People often get medals for moral killings.

The "core" definition of a moral act is to do no harm, or the least amount of harm.

Thank you for revising your moral rule. You show progress.

Therefore, as long as your action do not cause harm, it is a moral act, in all cases or circumstances. Extending this core principle to include, causing harm to prevent further harm, only demonstrates your own self-serving biases, and lends itself to abuses(lynching, waterboarding, assassinations).

People who let other people come to harm without trying to stop the perpetrator even if that involves harming him are called sociopaths. They have no empathy, sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. Or they are just cowards.

I would certainly take the shot, as any other rational person would.

What happened to do no harm? I'm glad you came to your senses.

But the difference between us, is that I would know that my actions were immoral, and would feel a sense of remorse that I was force to kill another human being. Somehow I feel that you would feel no remorse, and sleep like a baby. I could be wrong but lets see what kind of a mind-set I'm dealing with.

You are dealing with a mind-set that would be so proud to have saved all those children, a mind-set that would have felt such remorse and probably wouldn't have been able to sleep the rest of his life for guilty conscience if he hadn't taken that shot. Let's see what kind of mind-set I'm dealing with. If you hadn't taken the shot and the terrorist set off the bomb, would you be able to sleep?

A clearly guilty rapist/killer of 5 small children, was released by the court on a minor technicality. The "moral" members of the local neighbourhood watch, and members of the police department decided to litter the streets and billboards with his photo and address. They wanted to make sure everyone in the community knew who he was, what he had done, and where he lived. Two weeks later, he was found with his privates remove, hands bound behind his back, and hanging from a bell tower. The police after 1 week of a thorough investigation determine that it must have been suicide due to moral guilt. My question is, do you think that the posting of information about this person was a moral action, or an immoral action? Do you think that the community should in anyway be morally responsible for the obvious outcome? Who said social empathy was dying?

It was an immoral action, simply because it would be detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society if everybody started doing such things.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Again, please stop misrepresenting what I say. It is intellectually dishonest. I've said there is no such thing as objective morality. So why do you keep mentioning it?

Because you keep implying that morality is objective. For example:

"Obviously, since babies are not in control of, or consciously aware of their actions, their actions are objective, and outside of their conscious control. Their actions are based only on their hardwired inherited and instinctive evolutionary traits, which are objective."

When you state that actions based on instincts that evolved are objective actions, then you are implying that morality is objective.

The word, "objective" has many different meanings, and your definition is meaningless. From the puppets perspective, is the puppet master objectively controlling its movements? Is the puppet master independent of his puppet?

The puppet is not a moral agent nor a conscious organism making claims.

Here is a dictionary definition:

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Are our genes independent from our subjective awareness?

As you have stated elsewhere, no they are not. Our subjective awareness is dependent on our genes and physical brain. That doesn't make our awareness objective. I can program a computer to spit out 6 when asked what 2+2 is. That doesn't make the answer either correct or objective.

I will reserve my comments until I know what you mean by "objective", including an example.

The circumference of the Earth is an objective measure. It can be tested or verified independently of anyone's opinion.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Does that mean that a moral act is an act that is immoral 0.1% of the time?Of course not. You have to determine which action is moral before you act.I don't "determine" the morality. What determines the morality of the action is whether the action is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental action. If so it's moral.Of course. Never said otherwise.And if that action was the most beneficial/least detrimental action under the circumstances they would be right. If not, they would be wrong.It isn't. You just make it difficult.People aren't criminally responsible for moral killings, only immoral ones. People often get medals for moral killings.Thank you for revising your moral rule. You show progress.People who let other people come to harm without trying to stop the perpetrator even if that involves harming him are called sociopaths. They have no empathy, sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. Or they are just cowards.What happened to do no harm? I'm glad you came to your senses.You are dealing with a mind-set that would be so proud to have saved all those children, a mind-set that would have felt such remorse and probably wouldn't have been able to sleep the rest of his life for guilty conscience if he hadn't taken that shot. Let's see what kind of mind-set I'm dealing with. If you hadn't taken the shot and the terrorist set off the bomb, would you be able to sleep?It was an immoral action, simply because it would be detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society if everybody started doing such things.

What is truly amazing is how you can agree with my train of logic, and still come to a different conclusion. Either you are willfully obstinate, or willfully sardonic. The 0.1% of the definition was merely to accommodate for any unknown factors, since no definition is absolutely perfect. But, for the purpose of this conversation and for all other practical purposes, the other 99.9% makes it close enough.

What determines a moral action is the act itself, and the intention of the act. Either the act in itself is morally good or it is immorally bad. A moral act will always be an act that is good, beneficial, and will cause the least amount of harm and ill-being to another. Period! A moral act, is an act the does NOT need to be justified, excused, or considered necessary. Period! It is NOT an act where laws need to be created to protect people from its actions, or make those committing its actions criminally responsible. Why is this so difficult? Do we need laws to protect us from acts of kindness, generosity, and self-sacrifice? Are there any circumstances where these actions need to be justified, excused or proven necessary? I am not talking about the reason behind the act. I am talking about the act itself. You are only talking about how the results will determine if the act is moral or non-moral/immoral. I am talking about not only the results of the act itself(greatest harm), but also the moral intentions before the act.

"Moral killing??? Maybe we should give a medal for killing rich people, selfish people, cheating spouses, people with immoral thoughts, liars, and people stealing because they're hungry(they did in early Britain). We can simply call them all "moral killings". Also, unless you can actually see into the future, your foresighted self-serving assertions are only conjecture and alarmism. You have no idea what the benefit or consequences of any act of killing WILL be, only what you believe the benefits and consequences MIGHT be. I.e., the bomber may have a "dead mans" switch, and killing him might cause harm and suffering to many others from the blast. Would you then simple modify the definition again to suit the results, or simply state "oops"?

You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm, simply because you define it as a moral act under certain circumstances. I have stated many times that the act of Killing is an inherently immoral/evil act. It ranks up there with rape and torture. This is determined from the definition of a moral act, prior to the commission of the act. I also stated that under certain conditions this act can be considered justifiable, excusable, or absolutely necessary. This moral judgement is only determined after the fact, and is not based on any subjective intent. Also, thank you for exposing your one-dimensional mind-set, by misrepresenting my scenario to create your own straw man to answer. I think I've heard enough, and know enough about your parroted nonsense. On a personal note, did you also vote for Donald Drumpf? As dirty harry said, "as long as the right people are killed...".

 

[ArtieE]

What is truly amazing is how you can agree with my train of logic, and still come to a different conclusion. Either you are willfully obstinate, or willfully sardonic. The 0.1% of the definition was merely to accommodate for any unknown factors, since no definition is absolutely perfect. But, for the purpose of this conversation and for all other practical purposes, the other 99.9% makes it close enough.

What determines a moral action is the act itself, and the intention of the act.

The moral action is the one that under the circumstances is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people. A moral person always intends to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental.

Either the act in itself is morally good or it is immorally bad. A moral act will always be an act that is good, beneficial, and will cause the least amount of harm and ill-being to another. Period!

No, a moral act is an act that is good, beneficial, and minimizes harm to others! Plural! Therefore killing the terrorist before he sets off a bomb in a room full of children is the moral act since it causes the least amount of harm to others.

A moral act, is an act the does NOT need to be justified, excused, or considered necessary. Period!

Correct.

It is NOT an act where laws need to be created to protect people from its actions,

Correct. We don't have any laws meant to protect us from people who harm some people in order to save a lot of other people. We give them medals.

or make those committing its actions criminally responsible. Why is this so difficult? Do we need laws to protect us from acts of kindness, generosity, and self-sacrifice? Are there any circumstances where these actions need to be justified, excused or proven necessary? I am not talking about the reason behind the act. I am talking about the act itself. You are only talking about how the results will determine if the act is moral or non-moral/immoral. I am talking about not only the results of the act itself(greatest harm), but also the moral intentions before the act.

If your actions are intended to minimize harm done to your society and people you are acting with moral intentions. If you have to do harm to minimize harm the moral thing is obviously to do as little harm as possible and harm as few people as possible to achieve your goal.

"Moral killing??? Maybe we should give a medal for killing rich people, selfish people, cheating spouses, people with immoral thoughts, liars, and people stealing because they're hungry(they did in early Britain). We can simply call them all "moral killings".

LOL no we couldn't give them medals because those actions would be detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and people in it.

You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm,

You are truly delusional if you think that letting a killer keep on killing people is less harmful than killing him.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

And I disagree. Once it becomes necessary, it is moral *in that case*.


I agree with this. The actions of the physical universe are not subject to human presence.


Mathematics is a *language*. It is a formal language that we invent to help us understand the universe. But, for example, there are systems where 1+1=0. Also, the rules of addition are not always *applicable* to the real world. Whether they are true in the real world is determined by observation and testing.


Math is different than physics. math is the *language*.


Yes. In short, they are conventions of language. It is fully possible to invent and use other logical systems. In some cases, they can even work better.



I disagree. Math is no more 'objective' than language is. There is nothing inherent in a cat that makes the word 'cat' appropriate for that animal. There is nothing inherent in the universe that requires our particular formalization of logic.

And yes, I would fully expect another species to have a different system of logic: there is more than one that can work, after all. And math is even less likely to be universal in that sense.



Hmmm....not just on our genes, etc. Learning and experience also have a lot to do with attitudes, etc. There is a non-trivial social component to all of these which makes them non-objective.

Math is one of the tools we use to explain/describe natural phenomena. It is the logical tool we use to systematize our understanding of the patterns of shapes, quantities, and the arrangements of everything we know about our subjective reality. It is a tool used to compare observed relationships. The language we use is irrelevant to our understanding of the objective principles of math and logic. The shape of a circle, the area of a triangle, the concept of a dichotomy, pi, the principles of inductive and deductive reasoning, and the concepts of space, infinity and even "zero", all exist even in the absence of humans. Math is also the scientific tool that physicist use to represent their ideas. If you want to call it a language, like English or Chinese, who cares. Since it would be very difficult to teach math in Chinese to English students, the language is only secondary to the math principles themselves. But a fundamental understanding of mathematical principles can be taught without the use of any language at all. In fact many scientists employ thought experiments, that require no language at all(Maxwell's demon, Einstein's elevator, or Schrödinger's cat). 1 + 1 will always equal two, anywhere in the universe. Of course we can manipulate the equation as we see fit, but we still can't violate its rules. What do you think was on the gold discs sent into space by NASA, over forty years ago aboard Voyager? It represented the abstract logical and mathematical principles of earthlings. No language was involved, other than a sampling of different languages on the earth saying "greetings".

Since you can't provide any examples of other alien life forms, other mathematical frameworks, or other logical systems, I guess we are stuck with the only one that we DO KNOW for certain. Although "hope springs eternal", maybe you can provide an example of where the conceptual abstract idea of addition is not applicable to the "real world"? I personally believe that all of math is simply different versions of the same addition. Whether you are adding/subtracting groups of numbers (multiplication/division), or adding/subtracting individual positive and negative numbers(addition/subtraction). It is still addition. This also includes adding approximations, uncertainties, or other ranges of values(calculus, and quantum mechanics).

Obviously you don't understand that abstract mathematical and logical concepts will exist, even in the absence of humans. They are both objectively abstract concepts. Even if a child grew up alone, he would eventually adapt these abstract concepts to insure his survival. It is our inherited genes(from those that have survived) that allows this to happen objectively(without our awareness).

Back to morality. Saying that the act of killing is necessary, does not mean that killing is moral. It simply means that it was necessary, period. As I have stated many times before, a moral does not need to be justified , excused, or decided as being necessary. But the act of killing does. Therefore, it is not a moral act.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Because you keep implying that morality is objective. For example:

"Obviously, since babies are not in control of, or consciously aware of their actions, their actions are objective, and outside of their conscious control. Their actions are based only on their hardwired inherited and instinctive evolutionary traits, which are objective."

When you state that actions based on instincts that evolved are objective actions, then you are implying that morality is objective.



The puppet is not a moral agent nor a conscious organism making claims.

Here is a dictionary definition:

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."



As you have stated elsewhere, no they are not. Our subjective awareness is dependent on our genes and physical brain. That doesn't make our awareness objective. I can program a computer to spit out 6 when asked what 2+2 is. That doesn't make the answer either correct or objective.



The circumference of the Earth is an objective measure. It can be tested or verified independently of anyone's opinion.

Excuse me? Do you even know what morality is? Can you at least understand that a person needs to be at least conscious, to determine whether their actions are good/right or bad/wrong, to have any conception of morality? I have no idea how anyone could think that the genetic control of our pre-aware bodies equate to morality. That is ludicrous and irrational. It is the higher learning centers of the brain, and other learned factors, that allow us to conceive if our actions are moral right, or moral wrong. These centers are not developed at such a young age. Therefore children are effectively and objectively controlled by their genetic make-up. Having said this, a child's sense of morality, is hardwired enough to increase his chances for survival. I have emphasized this instinctive behavior with the shark pup and lion examples. Both have nothing to do with our conception of morality. It is our subjective judgement that is objective, from their perspective. Also since we can only choose NOT to action our conscious impulses(unlike babies), our actions can never be completely objective. But many of our actions still are objective(sympathetic response, reflex responses, autonomic reflexes, visceral and internal metabolism, and our unconscious state). But as one poster stated, they can't be because they(?) are not completely separated/independent from the body. This of course is his narrow interpretation of the definition of objective, not mine.

The puppet example was only to demonstrate the different objective/subjective perspectives. It was not meant to discern whether the puppet is a moral agent, or a conscious organism. I will stipulate that a wooden puppet is NOT a moral agent or a conscious organism. I seriously think that you missed the point entirely. What exactly is this a definition of? Morality, objective, what?

Self-awareness is not objective, it is dependent. It is dependent on a functioning brain and functioning sensory organs. Without either there is no conscious awareness. Please tell me that you are not equivocating billions of years of natural trial and error, with falsely reprogramming a man-made computer? You are using apples to oranges to make lemonade.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

All good objectivity is determined by subjectivity.

Your post reminds me of story where you are the Zen master and the guy you are responding to is one of the monks:

One day two monks were in a garden arguing subjectivity versus objectivity. The Zen master hearing them arguing approached the two students. The Zen master asked, "that rock over there, does that exist inside your head or outside your head?". One of the monks looked up at the Zen master and replied, "Well, our religious bible tells us that all truth is subjective so that rock over there only exists inside my head." At which point the Zen master replies, "Then it must be pretty heavy all day walking around with that rock in your head!"

Thank you, I think. The Zen master only had to deal with religious indoctrination and blind ignorance. I have to deal with cognizant dissonance and willful ignorance. I would envy the Zen master.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The moral action is the one that under the circumstances is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people. A moral person always intends to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental.No, a moral act is an act that is good, beneficial, and minimizes harm to others! Plural! Therefore killing the terrorist before he sets off a bomb in a room full of children is the moral act since it causes the least amount of harm to others.Correct.Correct. We don't have any laws meant to protect us from people who harm some people in order to save a lot of other people. We give them medals.If your actions are intended to minimize harm done to your society and people you are acting with moral intentions. If you have to do harm to minimize harm the moral thing is obviously to do as little harm as possible and harm as few people as possible to achieve your goal.LOL no we couldn't give them medals because those actions would be detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and people in it.You are truly delusional if you think that letting a killer keep on killing people is less harmful than killing him.

Wow. let's see if I understand. You agree that a moral act does not need to be justified, excused, or need to be considered necessary. You also agree that a moral act does not need laws to protect others from its action. You also agree that we should not give medals out to those "morally" killing rich people, selfish people, cheating spouses, people with immoral thoughts, liars, and people stealing because they're hungry. Only because it "would be detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and people in it". There are many that would might agree that getting rid of people like these, was definitely beneficial to society. What if the bomber was rich, selfish, mentally handicapped, or a well-know celebrity(i.e., O.J.)? Would he not fit into one of those categories, and undeserving of a medal for taking him out?

What I don't understand is if all moral acts need no justification, and there are no laws needed to protect people from any moral act, then why would we need justification and laws protecting people from the act of killing? Why can't you understand that the definition you keep parroting, only applies to the justification for the act. It has nothing to do with the act itself. Killing, like torture and rape, are all heinous, evil, and immoral acts within themselves. They can never be converted into being a moral act. You have admitted that all moral acts do not need laws or need to be justified, so does the act of killing need laws or need to be justified? If it does, then it can't be a moral act. It can only be a justifiable act. Why do you care if the act of killing is moral or not, since it is justifiable and is the means to the same end?

It is you that is truly delusional, if you think that I condone or consider any act of killing a moral act. I do believe that killing is necessary only under certain circumstances. But, the act itself is inherently immoral, period. Who believes that we should allow people to keep killing others people? Please, I'm not the scarecrow, I don't need anymore straws.

 

[Polymath257]

Math is one of the tools we use to explain/describe natural phenomena. It is the logical tool we use to systematize our understanding of the patterns of shapes, quantities, and the arrangements of everything we know about our subjective reality. It is a tool used to compare observed relationships. The language we use is irrelevant to our understanding of the objective principles of math and logic. The shape of a circle, the area of a triangle, the concept of a dichotomy, pi, the principles of inductive and deductive reasoning, and the concepts of space, infinity and even "zero", all exist even in the absence of humans. Math is also the scientific tool that physicist use to represent their ideas. If you want to call it a language, like English or Chinese, who cares. Since it would be very difficult to teach math in Chinese to English students, the language is only secondary to the math principles themselves. But a fundamental understanding of mathematical principles can be taught without the use of any language at all. In fact many scientists employ thought experiments, that require no language at all(Maxwell's demon, Einstein's elevator, or Schrödinger's cat). 1 + 1 will always equal two, anywhere in the universe. Of course we can manipulate the equation as we see fit, but we still can't violate its rules. What do you think was on the gold discs sent into space by NASA, over forty years ago aboard Voyager? It represented the abstract logical and mathematical principles of earthlings. No language was involved, other than a sampling of different languages on the earth saying "greetings".

Mathematics and logic are formal systems, formal languages, if you will. They exist because *we* set up the rules and use them to describe things. But there is nothing 'out there' that corresponds to the number 2, say. And, yes,the deduction that 1+1=2 is very simple based on the definitions of 1, +, 2, and =, it is derived from some assumptions about those symbols and how they can be manipulated.

I can give any number of cases where 1+1 is not two. Throw 1 rock against 1 rock and is is completely possible to end up with 5 rocks (we say they break up, but that only means the math doesn't apply). If you add 1 quart of water to 1 quart of alcohol, the result is NOT 2 quarts of the mixture. If you collide 1 proton to 1 proton, you may well get much more than just 2 protons (including more protons).

Since you can't provide any examples of other alien life forms, other mathematical frameworks, or other logical systems, I guess we are stuck with the only one that we DO KNOW for certain. Although "hope springs eternal", maybe you can provide an example of where the conceptual abstract idea of addition is not applicable to the "real world"? I personally believe that all of math is simply different versions of the same addition. Whether you are adding/subtracting groups of numbers (multiplication/division), or adding/subtracting individual positive and negative numbers(addition/subtraction). It is still addition. This also includes adding approximations, uncertainties, or other ranges of values(calculus, and quantum mechanics).

Except that we *do* know of other possible mathematics and other logics. There are three-valued logics (other than just true and false), there are other geometries (non-Euclidean, discovered about 200 years ago), other types of arithmetic, other 'shapes' for circles, situations where there are no squares, etc. Most people really don'tknow the wide variety of possibilities we *already know about*. To say there is only one math or one logic is simply wrong, and that is known.

Obviously you don't understand that abstract mathematical and logical concepts will exist, even in the absence of humans. They are both objectively abstract concepts. Even if a child grew up alone, he would eventually adapt these abstract concepts to insure his survival. It is our inherited genes(from those that have survived) that allows this to happen objectively(without our awareness).

No, I *disagree* that abstract mathematical concepts exist even in the absence of humans (well, of brains to hold the concepts).

Back to morality. Saying that the act of killing is necessary, does not mean that killing is moral.

All this statement means is that you are using the words in a very, very different way than anyone else. Might I suggest you adopt the usual definitions to ease communication?

It simply means that it was necessary, period. As I have stated many times before, a moral does not need to be justified , excused, or decided as being necessary. But the act of killing does. Therefore, it is not a moral act.

And I disagree.

 

[ArtieE]

What if the bomber was rich, selfish, mentally handicapped, or a well-know celebrity(i.e., O.J.)? Would he not fit into one of those categories, and undeserving of a medal for taking him out?

If taking the bomber out is the only option and causes the least amount of harm it matters not whether the bomber is rich or selfish or mentally handicapped or a well-known celebrity.

What I don't understand is if all moral acts need no justification, and there are no laws needed to protect people from any moral act, then why would we need justification and laws protecting people from the act of killing?

We don't have any laws protecting people from the act of killing in itself. We do have laws against certain kinds of killings. We call them unlawful.

Why can't you understand that the definition you keep parroting, only applies to the justification for the act. It has nothing to do with the act itself. Killing, like torture and rape, are all heinous, evil, and immoral acts within themselves. They can never be converted into being a moral act. You have admitted that all moral acts do not need laws or need to be justified, so does the act of killing need laws or need to be justified?

The act of killing is neither a moral nor an immoral act in itself. The morality or immorality is determined by additional factors.

It is you that is truly delusional, if you think that I condone or consider any act of killing a moral act. I do believe that killing is necessary only under certain circumstances. But, the act itself is inherently immoral, period. Who believes that we should allow people to keep killing others people? Please, I'm not the scarecrow, I don't need anymore straws.

You said and I quote: "You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm". So what do you think? Would killing the killer cause the greatest amount of harm or would letting him keep on killing cause the greatest amount of harm?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Mathematics and logic are formal systems, formal languages, if you will. They exist because *we* set up the rules and use them to describe things. But there is nothing 'out there' that corresponds to the number 2, say. And, yes,the deduction that 1+1=2 is very simple based on the definitions of 1, +, 2, and =, it is derived from some assumptions about those symbols and how they can be manipulated.

I can give any number of cases where 1+1 is not two. Throw 1 rock against 1 rock and is is completely possible to end up with 5 rocks (we say they break up, but that only means the math doesn't apply). If you add 1 quart of water to 1 quart of alcohol, the result is NOT 2 quarts of the mixture. If you collide 1 proton to 1 proton, you may well get much more than just 2 protons (including more protons).



Except that we *do* know of other possible mathematics and other logics. There are three-valued logics (other than just true and false), there are other geometries (non-Euclidean, discovered about 200 years ago), other types of arithmetic, other 'shapes' for circles, situations where there are no squares, etc. Most people really don'tknow the wide variety of possibilities we *already know about*. To say there is only one math or one logic is simply wrong, and that is known.



No, I *disagree* that abstract mathematical concepts exist even in the absence of humans (well, of brains to hold the concepts).

Do you ever address any of my issues, or do you just editorialize and cherry-pick? Let's start with the simplest, and most embarrassing first. If you smashed the rocks together, and then put the pieces back together again, how many rocks do you think you will have(1+1=2)? Let me help you, TWO ROCKS. Why, because of the rules governing the addition of categorically-like quantities. Adding 1 apple and 1 orange together does not give you 2 "apple-orange". It gives you 2 fruits(1+1=2). This is one of the rules in simple arithmetic(add only like terms), and a sad fallacy for you. Adding one liter of water to one liter of alcohol will obviously not give you a two liter mixture of "alcohol-water". What it will give you is a 1.94 liters alcohol solution, that is 55.5% v/v%(volume per volume percent), that is about 103.1 Proof(assuming you started with 1 liter of 95% pure alcohol). These calculations were based on the simple concepts and rules used in simple arithmetic, and a logical understanding of patterns. So adding the two liquids together does not give you two liters of liquids, but its close enough. If you were being intellectually honest you would have said, if we hold 1 bottle of alcohol and then hold 1 bottle of water, we would be holding 2 bottles of liquids(1+1 =2). This would be consistent with the rules of math and logic. Because of the fundamental nuclear strong force, two protons will never come together under normal circumstances. Therefore 1 proton plus 1 proton will equal 2 protons(1+1=2). However under abnormal condition(LHC, CERN), the collision would produce a cascade of subatomic particles. But this example, like the other two, have nothing to do with disproving the consistency of the simple rule for adding like quantities. Just more fallacious nonsense. Let's move on.

What are these other mathematical and logical concepts, and how were they derived? What is their fundamental framework? For example, turning a circuit on and off through transistors very very fast, could be considered a language. It is the mechanical processes(like Morse Code) that produces a human defined, created, and programed patterns, that we interpret as language. But no one talks digitally. When is a circle not a circle, or pi not pi, or a square not a square, in these other math systems? When is the addition of like quantities inconsistent? Does the law of identity, the concept of zero, infinity, complex and imaginary numbers, also exist in these other systems? What are these logic systems that are not based on true/false, real/not real, existence/non existence, and order/disorder? Lets see the evidence of all these unsupported claims that you've made. So far all I have seen, is one fallacy after another, and more intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If taking the bomber out is the only option and causes the least amount of harm it matters not whether the bomber is rich or selfish or mentally handicapped or a well-known celebrity.We don't have any laws protecting people from the act of killing in itself. We do have laws against certain kinds of killings. We call them unlawful.The act of killing is neither a moral nor an immoral act in itself. The morality or immorality is determined by additional factors.You said and I quote: "You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm". So what do you think? Would killing the killer cause the greatest amount of harm or would letting him keep on killing cause the greatest amount of harm?

Since you mentioned that anyone killing the bomber deserves a medal, but killing people committing other immoral acts do not, I was merely being sarcastic and highlighting your inconsistency. Obviously ignored. What is the definition of killing? Whether it is accidental, justifiable, necessary, excusable, or by design, its very nature is to cause the greatest amount of harm under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if it is actioned by another human, disease, bad luck, by oneself, or by design, the act of killing by its very nature is an immoral and evil act. Under ALL circumstances it will cause the greatest amount of harm, and under NO circumstances will it cause the least amount of harm. By its nature and definition, it is a non-moral act.

Having said this, I have no illusions that there are people within society that for whatever reason, will want to do the greatest amount of harm to other members of society. Since no one is expected to become a willing victim, one must defend oneself or those that can't defend themselves, from such immoral actions. This is called justification. What you seem logically incapable of understanding, is that the actions(killing) by the sniper and the actions(killing) by the bomber will both cause the greatest amount of harm(to the bomber or to the public). All actions that cause the greatest amount of harm are non-moral/immoral acts. Therefore, either both acts are moral, or both acts are immoral. But the same act can't be both, or one or the other. Why is this logic so difficult to understand or accept?

 

[ArtieE]

Since you mentioned that anyone killing the bomber deserves a medal, but killing people committing other immoral acts do not, I was merely being sarcastic and highlighting your inconsistency.

There's no inconsistency. If we start killing all we thought were selfish people and liars and cheating spouses etc it would be detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the general population. Hence immoral.

What is the definition of killing? Whether it is accidental, justifiable, necessary, excusable, or by design, its very nature is to cause the greatest amount of harm under any circumstances.

No of course it isn't. A lot of killlings are done to prevent the killer from causing much more harm to the society and the general population than the harm caused by killing him. Hence not killing would cause the greatest amount of harm.

It doesn't matter if it is actioned by another human, disease, bad luck, by oneself, or by design, the act of killing by its very nature is an immoral and evil act. Under ALL circumstances it will cause the greatest amount of harm, and under NO circumstances will it cause the least amount of harm. By its nature and definition, it is a non-moral act.

You are just being funny right? This is a joke? Letting a person go around killing many people causes less harm to the society and the general population than killing him (one person)?

Having said this, I have no illusions that there are people within society that for whatever reason, will want to do the greatest amount of harm to other members of society. Since no one is expected to become a willing victim, one must defend oneself or those that can't defend themselves, from such immoral actions. This is called justification. What you seem logically incapable of understanding, is that the actions(killing) by the sniper and the actions(killing) by the bomber will both cause the greatest amount of harm(to the bomber or to the public).

This must be a joke. Letting a killer go around killing people causes less harm to the society and the general population than killing him?

All actions that cause the greatest amount of harm are non-moral/immoral acts. Therefore, either both acts are moral, or both acts are immoral. But the same act can't be both, or one or the other. Why is this logic so difficult to understand or accept?

Because it's completely illogical to say that letting a killer keep on killing people is less harmful to the well-being and survival of the society and the general population than killing him. Are you completely unaware that killing somebody has consequences for others than the one killing and the one killed?