P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes he said something like that.
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
I also read it as a teenager, never realizing Lord of The Flies is a literal translation of the Hebrew Beelzebub. Or that the island is the Garden of Eden, etc. - brighthubeducation.com/homework-help-literature/34881-lord-of-the-flies-symbolism/
O
o_mlly
Guest
Rather than an evolved behavior, altruism may just as easily be explained “scientifically” as a perduring, natural potential behavior dormant and actuated in the many by the teaching of one great practitioner.
The evolved explanation offers less understanding than the “taught” explanation. Both require the potential to preexist the practice. However, the evolved explanation remains reliant on a selfish premise merely elevated to a family, tribe, or species level from the individual level.
This evolved explanation stretches to the point of incredulity when it attempts to explain why one man sacrifices his life for no material gain of anybody now, or in the future.
Of course, the great teacher explanation relies on a theistic foundation.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Agreed, as “common sense” is in-and-of itself an insufficient basis for claim staking.
The underlying purpose of cooperation is selfish - it promotes the further existence of your own organism; your own genes. Thus why natural “reciprocal altruism” bears the obvious element of “reciprocation”. There is no natural “altruism” without it. We only practice these behaviors as they benefit our individual selves. This certainly diminishes the purity of the “altruism”.
Science also proves that we’re a selfish, competitive and warring species. Any naturalist moral schema that fails to include this is factually incomplete and likely a quasi-religious deceit.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Indeed. Science is concerned with facts and facts alone. Common sense is only concerned with the consequences of facts - which amounts to expediency rather than morality. It doesn’t advocate self-sacrifice, for example, unless it leads to advantages for the individual making the self-sacrifice.Agreed, as “common sense” is in-and-of itself an insufficient basis for claim staking.
The underlying purpose of cooperation is selfish - it promotes the further existence of your own organism; your own genes. Thus why natural “reciprocal altruism” bears the obvious element of “reciprocation”. There is no natural “altruism” without it. We only practice these behaviors as they benefit our individual selves. This certainly diminishes the purity of the “altruism”. Science also proves that we’re a selfish, competitive and warring species. Any naturalist moral schema that fails to include this is factually incomplete and likely a quasi-religious deceit.
I
inocente
Guest
Agreed, as “common sense” is in-and-of itself an insufficient basis for claim staking.
It’s unusual to find Catholics arguing against Aquinas, Aristotle and natural law.
*"Aristotle might be considered the first and greatest common sense philosopher. He was the first to use “common sense” as a technical term, and something of his meaning has persisted through the whole history of the concept. In De Anima (On the Soul), Aristotle describes koine aesthesis (common sensation) as the awareness of external objects through the coming together of our special sensations (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell), that is, perception of “things” and their varying states and modes. …]
Aristotle describes intellection and prudence in Book 6 of the Nichomachean Ethics. These are in their moral operation the concrete basis for his natural right, though he does not make this as clear as his great admirer and expositor Thomas Aquinas does. Finally, Aristotle articulates the essence of common sense on the social level as the rational sense of a community about what is good, right, and in the common interest with his notion of homonoia, or “concord” (literally, like-mindedness).
In the Nichomachean Ethics he describes homonoia as friendship among fellow citizens of good character based on having the “same judgment” about “what is in the common interest and what is important for life,” this judgment leading them to “choose the same things, and . . . execute what they have decided in common.” In particular homonoia leads to a common “wish” and determination, among ordinary and great alike, “that the best men should rule.” Homonoia, then, is in its fullest import a practical mode of rationality and the ground of inspired and noble politics.
Aquinas later translated Aristotle’s koine aesthesis as sensus communis, the Latin basis of our English “common sense.”
- Dr Scott Segrest, voegelinview.com/common-sense-tradition-pt-1/
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I wasn’t aware we were bound by their notions. Mea Culpa
Let’s look at your citations:
“A sense of community about what is good and right” being a derived definition of “common sense”? I’m completely fine with that.
It does not address, however, the validity and soundness of “what’s right”.
As your other citations further develop the same theme, the same critique applies.
“Common sense” is only authoritative when we both agree on what constitutes it. We don’t, ergo it is rejected.
You may wish to start a thread on “natural law” if you think such a thing can be objectively defined.
I
inocente
Guest
I suggest you start with the Summa Theologiae.
I expect Aristotle, Aquinas and the entire Western tradition of ethics and law apologize to you for their grievous mistake.
St Paul, Aquinas, your Church and the entire Western tradition of ethics and law apologize to you for daring to think otherwise.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
rubs temples
A text we referenced quite a bit in my seminary days… Also generally premised on the existence of God. Atheists do not accept that premise, thus it is useless in the discussion of atheistic moral norms. All theistic allusions are.
The error lies purely in your assumption that “if they say it, it must be so.” Yet again, the traditional western paradigm of morality generally alludes to a god - specifically the Christian one. This assumption is invalid in arguments with atheists.
rubs temples again
These are generally theistic in their bases. Which means you can’t use much of it in a discussion with an atheist about morality since they reject the underlying theism. This is a fundamental premise you keep doggedly missing.
So again:
You may wish to start a thread on secular “natural law” if you think such a thing can be objectively defined. Good luck.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I wasn’t actually arguing men aren’t better adapted to hunt. I was arguing to hunt effectively you need to be flexible, agile and nimble - not big and cumbersome - and you need to physically strong to build huts, dams and haul in fishing nets and these tasks are traditionally performed by women in hunter/gatherer tribes/societies.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of ‘fudging evolutionary facts,’ but it is a fact traditional concepts of gender have come under considerable scrutiny. Women have now proved they physically capable of performing many tasks equally as well as men including serving in the special forces.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I’ve got a friend in active service with the US Army Rangers that would beg to differ. The ladies have lower standards to meet and must receive special consideration for op-roles.
For example, everyone knows not to give the 30+ pound crew-serve weapon to the lady for a long op. They’re generally less functional if they’ve been dragged.
Another thread, I guess.
M
minkymurph
Guest
My observations were based on the performance of women when they are not given any special considerations and the standard is not lowered, but as you say we digress.I’ve got a friend in active service with the US Army Rangers that would beg to differ. The ladies have lower standards to meet and must receive special consideration for op-roles.
For example, everyone knows not to give the 30+ pound crew-serve weapon to the lady for a long op. They’re generally less functional if they’ve been dragged.
Another thread, I guess.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A hedonist could argue that the pleasure and satisfaction of knowing many people will admire you, remember you and regard you as a great hero for sacrificing yourself is a sufficient explanation! (Not that I agree.
I
inocente
Guest
Again, here’s the link I gave you the other day. Read about secular natural law. Again.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+Natural+Law
These concepts of common sense, human nature, natural law, natural rights, don’t have to be founded on God, hence the name natural. As anyone who has taken a class or read a book on ethics will know. Here’s a good one.
amazon.com/Companion-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0631187855/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489182009&sr=1-1&keywords=Companion+to+ethics
V
Vonsalza
Guest
One last attempt then I’ll consider you unable to be helped…
plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
“On the side of metaphysics, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with atheism: one cannot have a theory of divine providence without a divine being.”
“On the side of moral philosophy, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with a nihilism about value, that is, the rejection of the existence of values. It is also incompatible with relativist and conventionalist views, on which the status of value is entirely relative to one’s community or determined entirely by convention.”
Your insistence that an atheist can easily and readily appeal to the concept of “natural law” reflects a genuine, obvious lack of real knowledge about the concept.
This is simply the best I can do for you. shrug
Good luck.
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m not sure why this is even a point that we need to discuss.
The FACT that men can do some things better than women and the FACT that the reverse is true is undeniable.
WHY some people think that women are to be considered less valuable as a person is beyond me. The fact that you are arguing that ‘hey, women can hunt as well’ is actually perpetuating a difference that doesn’t matter.
I
inocente
Guest
It’s not clear whether you’re speaking of Christ here, as he wasn’t just a man, a great teacher, but for your claim to be true we’d have to ignore written formulations of the golden rule in diverse cultures going back well over a millennium before him, among other evidence.
We’d also have to abandon biblical support for natural law (Rom 2:14-15), and abandon an absolute unchanging natural law. Evolution doesn’t have any of those issues.
I
inocente
Guest
There was a poster who got himself banned recently. He made claims he couldn’t support and then mined quotes out of context to cover his retreats. Theatrical appeals to the gallery. Used arbitrary air quotes. Shrugged a lot.
I miss him.
*"The school of natural law known as secular natural law replaces the divine laws of God with the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as understood by human reason. This school theorizes about the uniform and fixed rules of nature, particularly human nature, to identify moral and ethical norms. Influenced by the rational empiricism of the seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinkers who stressed the importance of observation and experiment in arriving at reliable and demonstrable truths, secular natural law elevates the capacity of the human intellect over the spiritual authority of religion.
Many secular natural law theorists base their philosophy upon hypotheses about human behavior in the state of nature, a primitive stage in human evolution before the creation of governmental institutions and other complex societal organizations. In the state of nature, John Locke wrote, human beings live according to three principles—liberty, equality, and self-preservation. Because no government exists in the state of nature to offer police protection or regulate the distribution of goods and benefits, each individual has a right to self-preservation that he or she may exercise on equal footing with everyone else." - legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+Natural+Law*
First sentence of the second paragraph: “Many secular natural law theorists base their philosophy upon hypotheses about human behavior in the state of nature, a primitive stage in human evolution before the creation of governmental institutions and other complex societal organizations”.
Remind you of any atheists who you reckon can’t “easily and readily appeal to the concept” of natural law? Like, maybe, all of them?
M
minkymurph
Guest
Your right - it is somewhat futile. Debates have a tendency to go off in tangents from time to time.
I am not arguing women can hunt as well as men and thus not perpetuating a difference that doesn’t matter. In short - my position is traditional concepts of gender difference is to a greater extent than anything else a consequence of social evolution, and societal conditioning that is essentially patriarchal and thus designed to benefit men to a greater extent than women - which is why some would consider women less valuable as a person. I appreciate this is not being argued but I stand by my position in that gender difference cannot be attributed to our biological make up alone.
In contemporary society men display greater empathy and interest in babies and young children and play a more pro-active role in child rearing than they did during the industrial revolution in the 50’s when their sole contribution to the family was that of provider. Thus, the nurturing aspect of human nature is not a ‘woman’s thing’ as was implied in the post that gave rise to exchange that went off in a tangent. Now that men spend more time around babies and young children and we have more ‘lone fathers’ we may see a change in attitudes towards this traditional and arguably patriarchal concept.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I cannot think of one such person in history. I sometimes cannot remember what or even if I had breakfast so I guess would not be a target fan for one so deranged.A hedonist could argue that the pleasure and satisfaction of knowing many people will admire you, remember you and regard you as a great hero for sacrificing yourself is a sufficient explanation! (Not that I agree.
- Status