So your brain is the perceiver?
No, I am the perciever. The act of percieving happens in my brain. As I said.
You equated yourself with your experiences.
No I said “I am that which calls itself ‘I’” in other words my experience of my own existence is what I think of as being me. This is ultimately tautological, but you seemed to struggle with understanding it so I tried explaining in several different ways. From the looks of things I’ve just confused you further. Apologies if so.
So animals have no **rational **morality?
Once again animals aren’t rational AT ALL. They don’t have rational eating habits, or make rational decisions about where to live, they don’t have rational anything. Why does that make any difference? Some species of social animals have their own forms of morality. So your original point that
“persons are animals and animals are amoral.”
has been shown to be incorrect. Surely there is nothing further to say on this subject?
So responsibility is irrelevant?
Not at all, perhaps you forgot what we were talking about again? To remind you, the subject you were replying to was my explanation of how actions are made up of many parts, ie catching a ball is the combination of many muscles controlled by many more nerve signals etc etc. You replied with
“That wouldn’t exonerate you in a law court.”
Now there seems to be no connection between the subject and your response. Clearly your statement is true, but you could just as well have replied that the sky is blue. That is also true but nothing to do with the subject at hand so that too wouldn’t be in the slightest bit relevant. Perhaps you thought you were replying to something else?
Are **all **the parts responsible?
They are all collectively responsible yes, and collectively they are referred to as a person. So that again makes sense nicely.
So your preferences decide what is done?
Again, I suspect you are not reading the text you are replying to, or forgot the subject? Because your reply makes no sense.
You asked me to explain how basic social interaction works between people (specifically how to decide what is relevant in how to behave towards a person). I have explained that you have to consider the situation and the individual to identify if you know of any pertinent facts relevant to the current situation. In other words - no, it is not my preferences that decide what is done. Please go back to the previous post and read what I wrote if you’d like a more detailed explanation.
Which is still arbitrary!
Ah, I think I see the problem perhaps you’re unaware of what arbitrary means? Here’s some definitions of arbitrary to help you out:
1: depending on individual discretion
2a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power
3a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will
(from merriam-webster).
Now then from this you’ll note that the definition or arbitrary excludes calling a persons intrinsic nature as a human “arbitrary” (in 3.a.). If on the other hand each morning you woke up as a different species with no rhyme or reason, or you were forcefully switched from one species to another by the capricious will of some other being. THEN your species would indeed be arbitrary.
So Hitler obtained no pleasure from getting his own way and satisfying his lust for power?
I don’t know, but of course that would be an entirely separate subject. The question (to remind you again) was whether Hitlers justification for genocide was “lust for pleasure”. I would say that it was of course not and in this I believe I am aligned with every historian I have ever read on the topic, and indeed everyone I’ve ever talked to about the subject. But of course I’m open to hearing your argument. Please go right ahead and provide it.
Religion has always been a universal phenomenon** in human society**.
If we define “human society” in a fairly rigid way then you’ve probably got a defensible statement there. Well done. Of course even that has ceased to be true over the last few hundred years. But we’ll ignore that.
It applies to everyone always and everywhere but they ignore it.
I know, my point exactly. Before, during and after Jesus’s time, and even to a lesser extent today.
The truth is not determined by whether it is implemented.
Indeed. But of course that is not relevant. Unless you are arguing that the golden rule was not true 500BC when it was being taught, but BECAME true when Jesus taught it?
The principles of equality, liberty and fraternity are more fundamental than suffering and happiness. The criminal ignores them.
Funnily enough your two statements above are contradictory. You see if equality, liberty and fraternity were in fact more fundamental to humans than liking happiness and disliking suffering then nobody would be ABLE to ignore them (just like nobody is able to decide to enjoy experiencing suffering). Yet you have said that “the criminal” ignores them. So either they are NOT more fundamental or “the criminal” doesn’t ignore them.
As I said previously, the churches moral position on abortion and homosexuality.
Further evasion! I leave others to decide which view is correct.
Which others? Me? To be honest my own view is that it doesn’t make much difference as long as you don’t try to use different terms to move the goal posts. But I’m afraid I’ve seen that tactic used too many times no not be a bit wary when people try to switch between terms mid discussion. If there is something wrong with the terms “moral” and “immoral” then please tell me why you find it problematic and maybe “good” and “evil” would be more appropriate. But unless you can provide a good reason lets just keep using the terms we started out with.
It remains a fact that an accident is not a rational basis for anything whatsoever. I leave others to decide which view is correct.
An accident wouldn’t be a rational basis, I agree. However, fortunately our nature as humans DOES provide a rational basis.
You can’t get lower than matter!
??? Did you forget the topic again? You raised the point about people setting aside their empathy and morals to serve the ambitions of the USSR. I agreed that is a good example of people doing this for a non-religious reason. Of course there are plenty of religious examples of this as well. Neither though is to do with “matter” or its relative altitude.
It remains a fact that an accident is not a rational basis for anything whatsoever. I leave others to decide which view is correct.
Once again an accident wouldn’t be a rational basis, I agree. However, I’ve never argued that it would. You seem to be attacking a straw man here. I have argued that our intrinsic human nature provides a rational basis for morality. Thus far you don’t seem to be able to fault this position. Is that why you are attacking the straw man?
False deduction. Moral truths are not determined by human behaviour. Again I leave others to decide which view is correct.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten the discussion thus far again. To remind you, you said
“Natural responses are an inadequate basis for morality - as the bloodstained history of the human race amply demonstrates…”
So you were arguing that the failure of people to prevent violence and wars in our history (dispite having human nature) shows that empathy etc is an inadequate basis for morality.
So I repeated your argument replacing “human nature” with “religion” because of course the same thing applies. Religion too has failed to prevent violence and wars in our history (and has regularly been used as justification for them).
So by YOUR stated standard religion provides an inadequate basis for morality. You then backtracked on that and said that it is “An absurd and impossible demand that moral truths compel obedience…” which of course defeats your original position. Effectively you’re arguing with yourself here. I’m just commenting on your progress as you do so.
We seem to have reached an impasse…
Hate to say it, but it would help the discussion to move forwards if you’d try to remember what we were talking about. It does make progress difficult when I have to keep reminding you of the topic at hand with each post I write.
