You keep repeating that mantra and that I don’t make sense and that I’m not hearing your pearls of wisdom. Guess who feels the same? Sorry but I don’t have enough time today to try to disentangle our mutual failure to communicate so we can move on. Apologies, I’ll try to come back to it later.
You physicists
.Can’t fault you on your use of a natural law argument, but will question its notion that we have a known purpose, as it confuses purpose with nature. A spider’s nature is to consume insects, but that’s not its purpose any more than our purpose is to consume a beer. It presupposes the existence of an agency that designed purpose into both us and spiders, and that the agency created our species to have duties towards the agency. It makes assumptions all over the shop, which is fine if we accept them, not so hot if we don’t. It’s no better or worse than any other system, they all rely on us having faith that their (often big) assumptions are correct.
I like tonyrey’s principle that we should do what we are convinced is right, and then of course it depends on how we’re convinced.
He doesn’t presuppose a purpose or nature, does he? He derives a purpose from nature.
Unfortunately it’s not mine (in the sense that I discovered it) but I appreciate your liking for my reference to it>
Like all absolute principles it has its risks but that does not invalidate it nor support moral relativism. You yourself have pointed out how we can reduce the risks to a minimum. We can also take consolation in the fact that we’re not expected to be infallible! We would fall into the same trap if we rely on other person’s conscience - being still without any guarantee of infallibility. “Be true to thyself…” can be interpreted in that context…
Inocente:
) (1) What is human nature? I know you must have heard the expression: numerous times, more than likely. And, (2) What is the reason why humans exist? What is our raison d’etre? Are we the only extent physical object on this planet without a purpose? And, if you answer, “Yes” to this, you must then explain it.Blue and Green are objectively defined (ie, absolute), so this whole scenario doesn’t work–0,0,255 and 0,255,0 for the RGB values of Blue and Green respectively. I agree that the stopping point between what is green and what is blue would be subjective to each person, but that doesn’t mean that blue and green are each subjective.You physicists
Look at it from another angle. It’s objectively true that light with a wavelength of around 475 nm exists and can be sensed by our eyes. Ditto light around 520 nm. We call one blue and the other green, while for some reason the Tarahumara make no distinction, they perceive both as blue-green.
You can test your own perception by flicking through (say) 100 color squares from blue through green and stopping at the point where you want to make the distinction (more greeny than bluey). If you wait a while and flick the squares in the opposite order, you may make the distinction at a different square. Get others to do the experiment and they may well stop at slightly different points to you.
So, from your OP, “Blue is a better color than green!” is purely an opinion, but crucially blue and green are not themselves absolutes and can’t be treated as if in binary arithmetic. Once you look through another’s eyes things are not quite the same, ditto moral absolutes.
I say that that morality only exists in human discourse because, out of the, say, one million examples of where it exists, all one million of them are as expressions in human discourse. That is pretty persuasive empirical evidence. You might keep telling me that my mother is an alien, but until you can demonstrate this, I am going to continue to accept the overwhelming physical evidence that she is human–despite her quirkiness!
Those values (nomenclature) are human-determined and the terms (categories) are human-generated. They still have human subjective experience in them and as such do not exist outside of human discourse and perception. Light exists (EM radiation), but all the rest of what you say about it and label it has subjective human experience and thinking in it.
If you’ll go back and re-read my post you will notice that I said the natural law confuses nature with purpose, not you. You either do not read other’s posts, or you immediately spin them into strawmen.I can see why several posters herein have been having problems with you: you either do not read other’s posts, or you immediately spin them into strawmen.
If you’ll go back an re-read my post you will notice that I said nothing about “consuming insects” being the spider’s purpose. That, as I said clearly, is his nature.
.RGB 9,41,243 still looks blue to me. And you didn’t mention values using HSB, LAB or CMYK systems, which don’t turn out so neatly – in LAB full-on blue is 30,68,-112
.
.I understand and agree with this particular post even though I disagree with some of your other presentations. Also, I still can’t figure out the extent of the absolutes’ territory. No matter. Right now I am hung up on method which is the process you speak of and which I think is the most logical. Frankly, I like to view the mysteries of life as both - and This is why I prefer to let others do the talking on this type of thread.
No, I don’t repeat mantras. You keep making the same errors and ignoring my arguments against them. This isn’t about how you feel. It’s about the facts of what you have said and what I have said, and if you’re too lazy to ‘disentangle’ what that is, you should just admit it and stop pretending that you’re actually presenting an argument on par with mine that we just happen to disagree about. I have clearly explained why you are wrong. If you don’t want to bother to understand and respond to that explanation, you should stop pretending that you have anything rational to say on this subject. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
If you’ll go back and re-read my post you will notice that I said the natural law confuses nature with purpose, not you. You either do not read other’s posts, or you immediately spin them into strawmen.
I’ll let the readers decide.
Well . . . do they have a purpose, or not?
So, is this their purpose?
If, as you insist, evolution is purposeless, then nothing has a purpose?
Such as . . .
Wait, I’m lost. Do humans have purposes, or not?
Arrgh! Please allow me to finish pulling my hair out!
I’m sorry: but, I thought you just said that humans have no purpose?
Again, I’m sorry. I cannot accept any of those as purposes: you have told me there are no purposes. Sorry.
You mean, like getting to the store?
And, your proof?
And, your proof?
Not at all. I’m just exasperated (and, incredulous)!.“Now, if you come back to me and it is clear to me that you did not re-read my previous post, etc.” - methinks the season of goodwill toward men may be a little late this year
And, your proof?
.
This is correct because it addresses the unity of humanity which can only flow from two progenitors.
Because cultures have reflected on them for nearly all recorded history.
Sure, why not? Research the question and find out. This is an empirical question.
Of course: “There is a tree in my yard.”
Human morality primarily concerns human behaviors. Some of these are about personal relations. Some involve inanimate objects. I don’t see how to assess which dominates.
Paucity of evidence to the contrary. Which is already what I stated clearly, so I don’t know why this was asked again.
You are now off the topic. You keep shifting the focus; the game is tedious. I answered your questions. I don’t even care about persuading you; that is not why I am here. You are really simply starting to ask about what is irrelevant to throw up noise.