Moral philosophy transplanted from Disney thread

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

No, once again.  No there's not.  There's a hope and desire because people are scared and don't want death to be the end game so they make up all kinds of ideas about what goes on after because it makes them feel better.  But there is absolutely zero evidence or proof that there is anything after death.  

 

Really?

 

https://www.amazon.com/After-Bruce-Greyson/dp/125026586X

 

or

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, nafregnum said:

 

Well, at the level of the gene that's the only true purpose.  To us as humans it's wonderfully more complex.  

 

You could read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris or a synopsis of his arguments for a good-enough definition of flourishing and well-being.  There could be multiple mountaintops of high flourishing in the moral landscape.  In other words, many cultures might come up with very good sets of morals for increasing well being among their people.  But when you show me an ancient culture that killed their children to bury under their homes, or that used voodoo spells to attack their neighbors, I'd argue that they haven't gotten very high on the well being scale yet, and some improvements could be made.  

 

Yeah but "well-being" is completely subjective though. We could look at divorce rates, depression medication, etc today and say we're actually in decline. 

[dwy000]

19 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Really?

 

https://www.amazon.com/After-Bruce-Greyson/dp/125026586X

 

or

 

 

 

 

This doesn't suggest life after death.  This suggests our medical definition of death (the heart stopping) may be too early and the brain still has synapses firing.  A chicken with it's head cut off will run around for a while but nobody suggests its still alive.  

 

And what this certainly doesn't do is suggest there is consciousness outside of the brain and body that moves on to other places.  

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Again, you making a huge leap that there is a definitive "good" and "bad" independent of opinions and society.  We are saying that good and bad IS what society and opinions at the time and in that place dictate.  We may look back on past generations actions and say "that's bad" but we are doing it in the context of today's opinions and today's society.  200 years from now society (and opinions) might have morphed to say that what we consider good today might not be so good tomorrow.  

 

So saying how saying how "bad" the South was or Nazis were is basically just propaganda? A future society may look back at us in horror about "dumb" we were for believing in human rights and not allowing slaves? And they would be correct?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

This doesn't suggest life after death.  This suggests our medical definition of death (the heart stopping) may be too early and the brain still has synapses firing.  A chicken with it's head cut off will run around for a while but nobody suggests its still alive.  

 

And what this certainly doesn't do is suggest there is consciousness outside of the brain and body that moves on to other places.  

 

You might want to check out the book After that I posted. 

[dwy000]

Just now, stahleyp said:

 

You might want to check out the book After that I posted. 

Yeah, I'm not reading a random book that describes itself as offering an alternative theory as evidence of something that, if it had any credibility, would not be buried deep in the annals of the Amazon religious section.  

[dwy000]

7 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

So saying how saying how "bad" the South was or Nazis were is basically just propaganda? A future society may look back at us in horror about "dumb" we were for believing in human rights and not allowing slaves? And they would be correct?

they would be as correct in their time and society as we are today in ours.

[nafregnum]

3 hours ago, stahleyp said:

Yeah but "well-being" is completely subjective though. We could look at divorce rates, depression medication, etc today and say we're actually in decline. 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/#DesThe

 

Lots of ways to think about well-being.  

 

Who's to say that a higher divorce rate today is a sign that the world is going to hell in a hand basket?  Was society better off when wives were basically forced to stay with abusive partners?  Is that better for the kids?  Each case is unique, but I'd rather see women be able to escape abusive partners.  I definitely don't take divorce lightly, and I think it's better for couples to be slightly unhappy and learn how to get along and appreciate one another while they raise kids, because divorce might give those people even less happiness than they had before.  But sometimes divorce is completely awesome for the kids.  

 

After reading "Lost Connections" by Johann Hari, I think we do overprescribe depression meds as a kind of bandaid for the many problems that tend to lead people into depression.  He writes convincingly about "junk values" that we've developed over time ... kind of like Cheetohs for the soul.  It's a problem.  Modern society isn't perfect.  

 

If you think we're really in decline, and that there's a golden age in some other place and time, then let's use our theoretical time machine and some thought experiments.

 

1. You're a black woman.  Name a time in the past that you'd rather live in.

2. You're a young kid with a physical disability.  Is there a better time to be alive?

3. You were born into a family with no money.  Would it be better to be poor in the 1800s?  1910s?  1970s?

 

Preachers love to paint a world on fire where everything is falling apart.  They love to beat that drum in the faith I was taught as a kid.  And I ate it all up.  The world, what an evil dirty rotten place!  They harped on porno like it was going to wreck the very foundations of all human society.  Then I read an Economist issue a few years back which pointed out how as porn use rates rocketed upwards from the 1950s through today, rates of sexual violence against women fell.  You won't hear that from any pulpits, however.

 

Progress is also in the eye of the beholder I suppose.  Here's a couple of pictures of progress that I saw today in Liberty's newsletter. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In previous eras (before 1900), when child mortality was high, parents had to cope with the likelihood that their kids would die by disassociating/detaching somewhat from their kids as a psychic protection from all the pain that would flood into their lives if they over-invested all that loving feeling that neuro-typical parents naturally have for their kids.  Parents in the old days were more strict/harsh/stern/authoritarian instead of authoritative/assertive/nurturing/caring.  It's an important shift.

 

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

12 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

I do not believe God "asserts" morality but rather an attribute of God is morality. In other words, goodness cannot exist without God - only our opinion what is "good". And that, literally, could be anything. Nazis can be "good" as can sexualizing a child. 

 

Oh, ok, then essentially you're saying that there effectively is no morality that can be know. God can't be known by humans, and God doesn't assert morality on humans, so your "God is morality" argument is the same position as your "evolutionary morality isn't true morality". There's no violate or not violate, because in every case (God-based morality, evolutionary morality, any other morality) there's no known morality.

 

Quote

If morality is like math, how can we we violate them?

 

Re: Math: I don't think we can violate them ("we" being the society in aggregate, rather than individuals in the actual society.)

 

Quote

Isn't the moral standards of today far, far different than say Ancient Rome? Why is that?

 

No, the moral standards today aren't far, far different than ancient Rome. I really meant it when I said that the broad strokes of morality are the same, with the biggest differences being edge-cases about who is part of society.

[Guest]

On 3/10/2023 at 3:25 PM, dwy000 said:

Yeah, I'm not reading a random book that describes itself as offering an alternative theory as evidence of something that, if it had any credibility, would not be buried deep in the annals of the Amazon religious section.  

 

I mean, he got his PhD from Cornell and is the Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at University of Virginia. Both very solid educational centers, wouldn't you agree?

[Guest]

On 3/10/2023 at 3:27 PM, dwy000 said:

they would be as correct in their time and society as we are today in ours.

 

Glad you can be honest. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece allowed for some, let's say very "immoral" sexual acts with people of various degrees of maturity. Since each society creates their own "rules of the game" that was okay in that time? There is no "magic morality" that individual or society "ought" to conform to, right?

[Guest]

On 3/10/2023 at 7:27 PM, nafregnum said:

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/#DesThe

 

Lots of ways to think about well-being.  

 

Who's to say that a higher divorce rate today is a sign that the world is going to hell in a hand basket?  Was society better off when wives were basically forced to stay with abusive partners?  Is that better for the kids?  Each case is unique, but I'd rather see women be able to escape abusive partners.  I definitely don't take divorce lightly, and I think it's better for couples to be slightly unhappy and learn how to get along and appreciate one another while they raise kids, because divorce might give those people even less happiness than they had before.  But sometimes divorce is completely awesome for the kids.  

 

After reading "Lost Connections" by Johann Hari, I think we do overprescribe depression meds as a kind of bandaid for the many problems that tend to lead people into depression.  He writes convincingly about "junk values" that we've developed over time ... kind of like Cheetohs for the soul.  It's a problem.  Modern society isn't perfect.  

 

If you think we're really in decline, and that there's a golden age in some other place and time, then let's use our theoretical time machine and some thought experiments.

 

1. You're a black woman.  Name a time in the past that you'd rather live in.

2. You're a young kid with a physical disability.  Is there a better time to be alive?

3. You were born into a family with no money.  Would it be better to be poor in the 1800s?  1910s?  1970s?

 

Preachers love to paint a world on fire where everything is falling apart.  They love to beat that drum in the faith I was taught as a kid.  And I ate it all up.  The world, what an evil dirty rotten place!  They harped on porno like it was going to wreck the very foundations of all human society.  Then I read an Economist issue a few years back which pointed out how as porn use rates rocketed upwards from the 1950s through today, rates of sexual violence against women fell.  You won't hear that from any pulpits, however.

 

Progress is also in the eye of the beholder I suppose.  Here's a couple of pictures of progress that I saw today in Liberty's newsletter. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In previous eras (before 1900), when child mortality was high, parents had to cope with the likelihood that their kids would die by disassociating/detaching somewhat from their kids as a psychic protection from all the pain that would flood into their lives if they over-invested all that loving feeling that neuro-typical parents naturally have for their kids.  Parents in the old days were more strict/harsh/stern/authoritarian instead of authoritative/assertive/nurturing/caring.  It's an important shift.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to keep this short but I'm very crunched for time these days.

 

I don't deny there are various things that are far better than today. 

 

For your 3 scenarios,

 

1) I'll refrain from answering this since I have no way to measure. 

2) Now is probably the time due to medical advances.

3) I don't think poverty matters too much from a "well-being" perspective after a certain level (ie food, shelter, etc) are met. 

 

[Guest]

On 3/11/2023 at 12:01 AM, RichardGibbons said:

 

Oh, ok, then essentially you're saying that there effectively is no morality that can be know. God can't be known by humans, and God doesn't assert morality on humans, so your "God is morality" argument is the same position as your "evolutionary morality isn't true morality". There's no violate or not violate, because in every case (God-based morality, evolutionary morality, any other morality) there's no known morality.

 

 

Re: Math: I don't think we can violate them ("we" being the society in aggregate, rather than individuals in the actual society.)

 

 

No, the moral standards today aren't far, far different than ancient Rome. I really meant it when I said that the broad strokes of morality are the same, with the biggest differences being edge-cases about who is part of society.

 

I do think morality can be known by focusing on God and not our own desires. God is the source of moral goodness (ie what is moral and not). Or as Jesus said:

 

"“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19

 

Ancient Rome allowed for war rape and Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were very open about all types of sexual relationships. That isn't far different?

 

 

[Ross812]

13 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

I do think morality can be known by focusing on God and not our own desires. God is the source of moral goodness (ie what is moral and not). Or as Jesus said:

 

"“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19

 

Ancient Rome allowed for war rape and Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were very open about all types of sexual relationships. That isn't far different?

 

 

 

Ezekiel 16:7-8:

7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

 

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.

 

Summarized: If there is grass on the field, play ball. This is pedophilia by today's mores... You are picking and choosing which parts you like and asserting it is the moral north star.

[vinod1]

[rkbabang]

2 hours ago, vinod1 said:

 

 

Theory 1: god doesn't exist and they are both delusional.

Theory 2: God's the universe's best troll.

 

I'm partial to theory 1, but I do get a chuckle thinking about God messing with the minds of the faithful and LOL at the results.

 

[RichardGibbons]

11 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

I do think morality can be known by focusing on God and not our own desires. God is the source of moral goodness (ie what is moral and not).

 

This doesn't make much sense to me.  Sounds to me like you're basically saying, "I'll make up my own morality by thinking hard about it, but pretend that the answers I come up are coming from God."

 

That said, there's nothing wrong with that, unless one actually acts like one's morals come from God.

 

11 hours ago, stahleyp said:

Ancient Rome allowed for war rape and Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were very open about all types of sexual relationships. That isn't far different?

 

Nope, as I said, it's largely about deciding who counts as "part of society".  War rape falls into that. Most types of sexual relations are practiced today, as well. So, not far different.

 

Also, though I'll admit that most Christians seem to view sex as the most important moral aspect of their religion, I think it's a relatively small part of morality

 

Like, if you were to arbitrarily create, say, 10 religious commandments, I bet only one would be related to sex.  And really, I think sex is probably less than 1% of morality.  (In fact, I think I'd probably just have the simple, "don't do anything during sex that your partner(s) don't want you to do.")

 

On the other hand, "You must ensure that this religion grows" might take up, say, 40% of the commandments.

 

The relative smallness of sexual morality compared to all morality is worth noting, because my argument is that morals are largely the same for all successful societies, with minor tweaks around the edges, and you're saying that sexuality is mostly the same, with tweaks around the edges.

 

And it's worth noting that the sex-related commandment isn't the stuff Christians shout about today, but clearly related to social stability. Hard to have a stable society if everyone's screwing others' spouses. Again, evolutionary morality.

[dwy000]

23 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

Glad you can be honest. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece allowed for some, let's say very "immoral" sexual acts with people of various degrees of maturity. Since each society creates their own "rules of the game" that was okay in that time? There is no "magic morality" that individual or society "ought" to conform to, right?

Um, that's been our point the whole time.  There's no "magic morality", no definitive black and white version of right vs wrong, just what society and our moral compass tells us (although things like murder are very far at the end of the bell curve and generally agreed by all).  And "god" doesn't dictate what's right or wrong.

[dwy000]

23 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

I mean, he got his PhD from Cornell and is the Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at University of Virginia. Both very solid educational centers, wouldn't you agree?

The quality of his background and educational centers neither make him correct nor prove anything about consciousness surviving the body or death.  It's all science and neurons firing.  In fact, that seems to be what he measures - neurons firing.

[dwy000]

23 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

I do think morality can be known by focusing on God and not our own desires. God is the source of moral goodness (ie what is moral and not). Or as Jesus said:

 

"“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19

 

Ancient Rome allowed for war rape and Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were very open about all types of sexual relationships. That isn't far different?

 

 

No.  God is not the source of moral goodness because its a made up premise.  And "god" hasn't really opined on the subject in thousands of years.  It's only people in robes telling you their version.  

 

If god had one version of right/wrong and allah had a different version and budda had another version, which one gets to be correct?

Edited March 15, 2023 by dwy000

[DooDiligence]

The loudest moral religious advocates seem to have the most crowded closets. Love thy neighbor indeed.

 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/february/southern-baptist-abuse-investigation-houston-chronicle-sbc.html

 

and then there's the likes of the Swaggart family, Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Paul Shanley (the sheer volume of Catholic priests who've molested children is too long to list here), Mordechai Elon, Baruch Lanner (once again, the volume of Rabbi's who've molested children makes for a tediously long list), and let's not ignore Islamist leaders like Saeed Toosi who was acquitted after being convicted of raping four victims with the court stating “even if it is proved that the defendant has committed the act, it does not mean that he has committed a crime for which the law and the judiciary will be held accountable”. There's not enough ink in the world to outline the stains.

 

Hypocrisy anyone?

 

TBF, the god(s) have told us to be fruitful and multiply but never said anything about whether efforts had to be age appropriate or consensual.

[Guest]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:16 PM, Ross812 said:

 

Ezekiel 16:7-8:

7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

 

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.

 

Summarized: If there is grass on the field, play ball. This is pedophilia by today's mores... You are picking and choosing which parts you like and asserting it is the moral north star.

 

You do realize this is in reference to Jerusalem and not a person, right?

[Guest]

21 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

Theory 1: god doesn't exist and they are both delusional.

Theory 2: God's the universe's best troll.

 

I'm partial to theory 1, but I do get a chuckle thinking about God messing with the minds of the faithful and LOL at the results.

 

 

Theory 3: God is real and, as Jesus predicted, false prophets would come.

 

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?  So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

 

Matthew 7:15-20

 

Mohammed married a 6 year old girl when he was 50 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Does sound like good fruit or bad?

[Guest]

13 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

This doesn't make much sense to me.  Sounds to me like you're basically saying, "I'll make up my own morality by thinking hard about it, but pretend that the answers I come up are coming from God."

 

That said, there's nothing wrong with that, unless one actually acts like one's morals come from God.

 

 

Nope, as I said, it's largely about deciding who counts as "part of society".  War rape falls into that. Most types of sexual relations are practiced today, as well. So, not far different.

 

Also, though I'll admit that most Christians seem to view sex as the most important moral aspect of their religion, I think it's a relatively small part of morality

 

Like, if you were to arbitrarily create, say, 10 religious commandments, I bet only one would be related to sex.  And really, I think sex is probably less than 1% of morality.  (In fact, I think I'd probably just have the simple, "don't do anything during sex that your partner(s) don't want you to do.")

 

On the other hand, "You must ensure that this religion grows" might take up, say, 40% of the commandments.

 

The relative smallness of sexual morality compared to all morality is worth noting, because my argument is that morals are largely the same for all successful societies, with minor tweaks around the edges, and you're saying that sexuality is mostly the same, with tweaks around the edges.

 

And it's worth noting that the sex-related commandment isn't the stuff Christians shout about today, but clearly related to social stability. Hard to have a stable society if everyone's screwing others' spouses. Again, evolutionary morality.

 

I think the sexual morality is more about the condition of the heart. People are frequently sex obsessed and controlled by the sin.

 

The sexual acts common then are still illegal today. I can't post what it is or I might be banned. 

[rkbabang]

1 minute ago, stahleyp said:

 

Theory 3: God is real and, as Jesus predicted, false prophets would come.

 

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?  So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

 

Matthew 7:15-20

 

Mohammed married a 6 year old girl when he was 50 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Does sound like good fruit or bad?

 

 

Yes, I forgot. Theory 3: Out of all the religions any human has ever believed in, yours just happens to be correct.  

Ok.