|
|
#101
08-15-2005, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: atheistic morality
"Don't you think your argument has been presented myriads of times before? If it was valid, any decent mathmetican would have to agree."
Francis Crick, Sir Fred Hoyle, and Wickramasinghe all calculated the probability of life occurring by chance to be 1:10^40000. Charles-Eugene Guye calculated the probability of life occurring by chance to be 1:2.02x10^321. Harold J. Morowitz calculated the probability of life occurring by chance to be 1:10^399,999,866. Frank B. Salisbury calculated the probability of life occurring by chance to be 1:10^415. James F. Coppedge calculated the probability of life occurring by chance to be 1:10^119,879. Shall I continue? " Your argument. Not the calculation 
|
|
#102
08-15-2005, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
Why should I accept what andy fox says? Why not what osama says? [/ QUOTE ] You could judge those two people on their actions, determine which of the two more represents the type of person you want to assosciate with, and weigh their opinions accordingly. Why is thinking in this fashion so foreign to people?
|
|
#103
08-15-2005, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
True, but this doesn’t ask the question: Why should anyone care one way or the other about the longevity of the human race, given there is no god (or afterlife, “higher purpose”, whatever one wants to call it)? [/ QUOTE ] It's our nature to be averse to negative stimuli (physical and mental pain), and drawn to positive stimuli (happiness, pleasure). The forces which constructed us embedded in our nature positive stimuli associations with those things that promulgate the race, and negative associations those things which hinder it. If it were the opposite, we simply wouldn't be. eastbay
|
|
#105
08-16-2005, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So why would you say that genocide is 'wrong'? [/ QUOTE ] Jiminy Chr... are you serious? Because it causes massive suffering. This isn't brain surgery. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] There are many species on this planet that would welcome human genocide or extinction. [/ QUOTE ] lol. Now we are discussing insects' morality? [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. We are all insects. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There is no absolute good/evil or right/wrong, there's just different opinions. [/ QUOTE ] You can easily define absolute morality of humanity in terms of net effects on the human race. [/ QUOTE ] Don't simplify too much. At some point (overpopulation, no food) genocide might have positive effect for human race. Also it would be beneficial for human race to let only the most intelligent humans breed. Yet these things are against the moral code of the most of us.
|
|
#106
08-16-2005, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. We are all insects. [/ QUOTE ] Except that we aren't. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You can easily define absolute morality of humanity in terms of net effects on the human race. [/ QUOTE ] Don't simplify too much. At some point (overpopulation, no food) genocide might have positive effect for human race. [/ QUOTE ] Correct. And? [ QUOTE ] Also it would be beneficial for human race to let only the most intelligent humans breed. [/ QUOTE ] You think so? You don't think some people might get upset at that and cause problems for everybody? [ QUOTE ] Yet these things are against the moral code of the most of us. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think we've ever faced complete extinction by starvation, and it's certainly not clear that if it were the only option so that some could live, that it wouldn't be the best course of action in a reasonable person's moral code. As to your second proposition, I think you aren't thinking through the consequences of such a course of action. Take a look at the history of "eugenics." Did this work well or did it cause more problems than it solved? Maybe it isn't I who is oversimplifying. eastbay
|
|
#107
08-16-2005, 02:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Exactly. We are all insects. [/ QUOTE ] Except that we aren't. [/ QUOTE ] Universally human life and insect life are equally meaningless (or meaningful if you like that word better) [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You can easily define absolute morality of humanity in terms of net effects on the human race. [/ QUOTE ] Don't simplify too much. At some point (overpopulation, no food) genocide might have positive effect for human race. [/ QUOTE ] Correct. And? [/ QUOTE ] You said before that genocide IS wrong. If you think anything that has positive net effect for human race is right by absolute morality, you'll have to agree that genocide isn't always wrong. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also it would be beneficial for human race to let only the most intelligent humans breed. [/ QUOTE ] You think so? You don't think some people might get upset at that and cause problems for everybody? [/ QUOTE ] I said it's against the moral code of the most, and I'm pretty sure many would get upset. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yet these things are against the moral code of the most of us. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think we've ever faced complete extinction by starvation, and it's certainly not clear that if it were the only option so that some could live, that it wouldn't be the best course of action in a reasonable person's moral code. As to your second proposition, I think you aren't thinking through the consequences of such a course of action. Take a look at the history of "eugenics." Did this work well or did it cause more problems than it solved? Maybe it isn't I who is oversimplifying. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] I'm aware of the history of nazi eugenics and that's why it's pretty much concidered as tabu in our society. I still believe that if executed properly, it could have positive net effect for human race (and especially for most other species on this planet as I don't think humans are anything special compared to other animals). My point is that your original claim "we can easily define absolute morality of humanity in terms of net effects on the human race." is false, as we can't define what has positive effect for human race and what doesn't. We can only guess, but only time will tell if we were right. And the same action may have totally different effect later on, so we can't base our guesses on history.
|
|
#108
08-16-2005, 03:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
If you think anything that has positive net effect for human race is right by absolute morality, you'll have to agree that genocide isn't always wrong. [/ QUOTE ] A decision isn't correct just because it's +EV. There may be several alternatives that all have a positive expectation, in which case the one with a very small expectation would still be wrong. Even if you can imagine a few scenarios where genocide has a net positive effect, it'd be a real stretch to imagine a scenario where it has a more positive effect than any other possible course of action. (Even if you come up with such a scenario, it wouldn't necessarily make it the right thing to do, IMO. I'm not a utilitarian.)
|
|
#109
08-16-2005, 03:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
Universally human life and insect life are equally meaningless (or meaningful if you like that word better) [/ QUOTE ] You are using incredibly vague words like "universally" and "meaningful" without defining them. [ QUOTE ] You said before that genocide IS wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think we want to play the game of making a general statement, and then constructing abstruce contexts in which it may not be true. That's pretty boring. I didn't say it is absolutely wrong. I said it is wrong, which means that it is generally wrong in the vast majority of contexts. The exceptions are so artificial as to be unimportant. [ QUOTE ] If you think anything that has positive net effect for human race is right by absolute morality, you'll have to agree that genocide isn't always wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I'll agree that under some essentially ridiculously constructed circumstances that it might be the least awful of all horrible options. Sure. So what? (And since we were originally talking about "absolute morality" as handed down by God, I'll point out that the Bible seems to show an example of a Godly act being one of flooding the entire planet and killing nearly everyone for the greater good. This would appear to be a Godly act of genocide.) [ QUOTE ] I'm aware of the history of nazi eugenics and that's why it's pretty much concidered as tabu in our society. [/ QUOTE ] That may have highlighted it and put in the forefront of our consciousness, but that isn't why it's wrong. It's wrong because it causes suffering; it causes pain. [ QUOTE ] I still believe that if executed properly, it could have positive net effect for human race [/ QUOTE ] I think you are misinterpreting my "net positive effects." This is not a matter of numbers, or people scoring high on IQ tests, or any such thing. It is about the totality of human experience. Indeed, this is all we have. [ QUOTE ] My point is that your original claim "we can easily define absolute morality of humanity in terms of net effects on the human race." is false, as we can't define what has positive effect for human race and what doesn't. [/ QUOTE ] It isn't false. Just because it isn't necessarily precisely discernible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To the contrary, our ability to discern it is quite independent of its existence. Your statement is like saying the 10^100^100^100^100th digit of Pi doesn't exist. Of course it exists. That we don't know what it is is irrelevant. eastbay
|
|
#110
08-16-2005, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: atheistic morality
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Universally human life and insect life are equally meaningless (or meaningful if you like that word better) [/ QUOTE ] You are using incredibly vague words like "universally" and "meaningful" without defining them. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry about that. I mean insect and human have zero effect on what happens to our known (or unknown) universe, but yet both can live a meaningful life by their own standards. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you think anything that has positive net effect for human race is right by absolute morality, you'll have to agree that genocide isn't always wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I'll agree that under some essentially ridiculously constructed circumstances that it might be the least awful of all horrible options. Sure. So what? [/ QUOTE ] That makes it pretty clear to me that there isn't absolute moral code. [ QUOTE ] (And since we were originally talking about "absolute morality" as handed down by God, I'll point out that the Bible seems to show an example of a Godly act being one of flooding the entire planet and killing nearly everyone for the greater good. This would appear to be a Godly act of genocide.) [/ QUOTE ] I think the reason behind flood was revenge, but I agree that it was meant for the greater good. Also I agree that every christian soldier who kills is doing what the code says they shouldn't do. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm aware of the history of nazi eugenics and that's why it's pretty much concidered as tabu in our society. [/ QUOTE ] That may have highlighted it and put in the forefront of our consciousness, but that isn't why it's wrong. It's wrong because it causes suffering; it causes pain. [/ QUOTE ] Only if it isn't done voluntarily. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I still believe that if executed properly, it could have positive net effect for human race [/ QUOTE ] I think you are misinterpreting my "net positive effects." This is not a matter of numbers, or people scoring high on IQ tests, or any such thing. It is about the totality of human experience. Indeed, this is all we have. [/ QUOTE ] Clearly human life is not about scoring high on IQ tests. I'm thinking about all the positive things higher average IQ could make happen. Of course I don't know if these things would really happen if people were smarter. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My point is that your original claim "we can easily define absolute morality of humanity in terms of net effects on the human race." is false, as we can't define what has positive effect for human race and what doesn't. [/ QUOTE ] It isn't false. Just because it isn't necessarily precisely discernible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To the contrary, our ability to discern it is quite independent of its existence. Your statement is like saying the 10^100^100^100^100th digit of Pi doesn't exist. Of course it exists. That we don't know what it is is irrelevant. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] Knowing what it is definitely isn't irrelevant. Yes, like the pi digit, absolute moral code might exist, but we can't easily describe it. And whether there is an absolute moral code or not, it's existence is irrelevant to us if we don't know it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
