The ethics of morality

[4Horsemen]

You’re not arguing against determinism here, you are arguing against our knowledge of the causes of events. I don’t know what could come up or not but again, there has never been an event witnessed or recorded that has not been caused by other events. The sudden change of events, the traffic, the decision to go on a vacation have determined causes.

Hey, Filthy! What with all the excellent, knowledgable post on this thread from John and tonyrey and whoever added to this discussion, you and CuriousSeed et al. should be converting about now.

Have you ever done anything spontaneously? Your choice may be completely arbitrary, independent of physical stimulii or “determined causes.” You could change your mind and do something else? Tell me, what do the possible “determined causes” consist of?

Are you suggesting that these stories do not have physical causes? Could you support that claim? What other causes are there?

Rational thinking, emotional decisions.

So free will has no causes? Is free will then arbitrary as it would subsequently not be based upon anything meaningful, like desires or lessons learnt from previous experience or any kind of thought pattern that is retained by the individual?

Free will as part of our intellectual makeup freely decides. Sometimes we employ our reason to make a rational decision. Other times we may make a sudden decision springing from the emotional part of our makeup. But I agree that our makeup is biological as well as spiritual, and previous experience does play a role as well as environment. Yet, in the finality, a choice is made from other possible choices (behaviors, thoughts, emotions). BTW, there are others out there that I’m sure could discuss this issue with more clarity.

We’ve outlined that it is not by definition killing.

If it’s not killing what is it?

Agreed, happiness is generally subjective as different things make different people happy.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
It is well known that perfect happiness is elusive on this earth because we can find perfect happiness only in God. That is our ultimate end. The pathway to perfect happiness is the practice of virtue. So, you see, there are two concepts of happiness. One is the ordinary happy feelings we feel when things go our way. But whatever happiness we can achieve in this life falls short of the ideal. The ‘ideal’ is an absolute and objective.

[Quotte] Apparently.

O.K. Discussion ended! You are agreeing with me that there IS an “absolute”, “objective” reality! Congratulations!

The fetus is not alive though, not according to the biological definition of life as it is incapable of several of the main attributes required for life.

Here we go again. Have you read ANYTHING on embryology, fetology besides your Wikipedia definition?

No, are you even reading what I’m saying? I believe people have the right to choose their own death. Abortion is not killing nor results in death as the fetus is not alive.

So, if your best friend needed your help to kill himself or herself, would you participate and do your friend a favor?

Despite what people think, so are they. Your opinions of God are subjective to you, your opinions on morality are subjective to you. Some people might agree with your opinions, some disagree. Until an objective standard is presented and confirmed then relativism is all we have to go on.

You already agreed with me on the absolute ideal of what happiness is. So, IOW, you know (at least deep your heart) that objective reality exists AND it originates in God.
Have a happy day!

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Hey, Filthy! What with all the excellent, knowledgable post on this thread from John and tonyrey and whoever added to this discussion, you and CuriousSeed et al. should be converting about now.

Have you ever done anything spontaneously? Your choice may be completely arbitrary, independent of physical stimulii or “determined causes.” You could change your mind and do something else?

Nope, generally the choices I make line up with what i want and what I know, the other times, I’m inebriated.

Tell me, what do the possible “determined causes” consist of?

There are many, genetics, the way you were raised, your peers, your family, your job, your feelings about your friends, family, job. The list is basically everything thing within the universe.

Rational thinking, emotional decisions.

You don’t think those are determined? Are they arbitrary? What are they if not determined?

Free will as part of our intellectual makeup freely decides. Sometimes we employ our reason to make a rational decision. Other times we may make a sudden decision springing from the emotional part of our makeup. But I agree that our makeup is biological as well as spiritual, and previous experience does play a role as well as environment. Yet, in the finality, a choice is made from other possible choices (behaviors, thoughts, emotions).

Well is there any part of this ‘free will’ that is not determined by parts of the universe that existed previously? Those spontaneous decisions, was one of them arbitrary and random like deciding to collect stamps even if you have no interest in doing so? Spontaneous suicide that has nothing to do with hormones? That’s the problem with trying to suggest there are forces that are not caused and that decisions can be made that are not determined by preexisting factors, the part that is not determined has no basis on anything, if something is not determined it is random.

BTW, there are others out there that I’m sure could discuss this issue with more clarity.

And I would happily discuss it with them.

If it’s not killing what is it?

Abortion, it occurs naturally all the time.
4Horsemen;7879003:

O.K. Discussion ended! You are agreeing with me that there IS an “absolute”, “objective” reality! Congratulations!

No, I am suggesting that it is only an opinion.

Here we go again. Have you read ANYTHING on embryology, fetology besides your Wikipedia definition?

The definition of life in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the currently accepted biological definition of life.

So, if your best friend needed your help to kill himself or herself, would you participate and do your friend a favor?

Depends on the situation but it is possible, yes.

You already agreed with me on the absolute ideal of what happiness is. So, IOW, you know (at least deep your heart) that objective reality exists AND it originates in God.
Have a happy day!

You misunderstood my use of the term ‘apparently’.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Abortions are right because you said so!
Mindless sex is right because you said so!
Watching pornography is right because you said so!
Because you said so is the only objective truth to which humans are subject!

Better not to comment, than to attempt sarcasm as a substitute for failure to think for yourself.

 

[4Horsemen]

Nope, generally the choices I make line up with what i want and what I know, the other times, I’m inebriated.

Determinism is absurd and can’t be true since it implicity denies the existence of the mind whether it intends to or not. Determinism is a Mechanical Philosophy that is materialistic. Sounds like you’re a proponent of B.F. Skinner’s philosophy of radical behavioralism.

There are many, genetics, the way you were raised, your peers, your family, your job, your feelings about your friends, family, job. The list is basically everything thing within the universe.

I agree that these have an influence on our lives and choices, but it’s our freedom to choose (remember your choice for abortion) that makes us human instead of merely animal.

Well is there any part of this ‘free will’ that is not determined by parts of the universe that existed previously? Those spontaneous decisions, was one of them arbitrary and random like deciding to collect stamps even if you have no interest in doing so? Spontaneous suicide that has nothing to do with hormones? That’s the problem with trying to suggest there are forces that are not caused and that decisions can be made that are not determined by preexisting factors, the part that is not determined has no basis on anything, if something is not determined it is random.

So according to you even moral decisions are determined, whereas I see reason and free will at work to choose what is right and moral. What would you need a mind for if every act is completely dependent on another act. You’d be an automaton.

Abortion, it occurs naturally all the time.

Abortion that occurs naturally is often referred to as a “miscarriage.” That’s not killing.

The definition of life in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the currently accepted biological definition of life.

And all human beings meet this definition regardless of stage of development or place of residence (inside the womb or outside). State of dependence on another is not a factor since people old and young and those who are in accidents or suffering from an illness are often dependent on medical help in order to stay alive, even if it’s temporary.

Depends on the situation but it is possible, yes.

So you would help a friend commit suicide? What if your friend is depressed as most suicides are (unless they are suffering physical pain)? People who are depressed are using suicide to call out for help. When it seems unforthcoming, they often go through with their plans. But I’m sure you realize that they feel there is no other choice. Just like many abortive women.

You misunderstood my use of the term ‘apparently’.

Please define relevant to the discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

Better not to comment, than to attempt sarcasm as a substitute for failure to think for yourself.

That applies to your statements about God!

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Determinism is absurd and can’t be true since it implicity denies the existence of the mind whether it intends to or not.

This just shows a presumptuous attitude in regards to what the mind is, scientifically speaking, the brain is considered the physical manifestation of the mind and the two are synonymous, people seem to assume that the mind and consciousness exists as a separate entity but no credible evidence has ever been provided to support this claim.

Determinism is a Mechanical Philosophy that is materialistic. Sounds like you’re a proponent of B.F. Skinner’s philosophy of radical behavioralism.

Haven’t read it.

I agree that these have an influence on our lives and choices, but it’s our freedom to choose

That choice is a reflection of who we are and who we are is determined by previously existing factors. If that choice is not determined by our character and the things that determined our character then the choices would be arbitrary and would not necessarily relate to our desires or anything relevant to us. The choice to commit suicide is just as likely as the choice to drink water if choice is not determined in some manner if not entirely by the previous factors within our lives.

(remember your choice for abortion) that makes us human instead of merely animal.

This just shows a gross misunderstanding of the biological terms “human” and “animal.” If you meant them philosophically then you might have to clarify what you meant by “human” and “animal.”

So according to you even moral decisions are determined, whereas I see reason and free will at work to choose what is right and moral. What would you need a mind for if every act is completely dependent on another act. You’d be an automaton.

The mind plays a large part in our decision making, even if it is determined without the mind the final result would be different.

Abortion that occurs naturally is often referred to as a “miscarriage.” That’s not killing.

Often it is killing, the mother’s body can reject the fetus which results in the abortion. It’s a natural process and although you refer to this fetus being aborted as killing, the link there is unjustified. You asked what it was called if not killing, so I told you, abortion.

And all human beings meet this definition regardless of stage of development or place of residence (inside the womb or outside). State of dependence on another is not a factor since people old and young and those who are in accidents or suffering from an illness are often dependent on medical help in order to stay alive, even if it’s temporary.

This is just ignoring the individual requirements of something to be considered alive and exchanging them instead for the term “dependence.”

So you would help a friend commit suicide? What if your friend is depressed as most suicides are (unless they are suffering physical pain)? People who are depressed are using suicide to call out for help. When it seems unforthcoming, they often go through with their plans. But I’m sure you realize that they feel there is no other choice. Just like many abortive women.

As I told you it depends on the situation but yes, there are some cases where I would consider euthanasia but I could not tell you how I would feel at the time or what situations would or would not be acceptable to any great degree. I have never been confronted with a situation like that or the likely large lead up to it so I do not know how I would act in every situation, but some, certainly the great physical and emotional pain situations where I would.

Please define relevant to the discussion.

Apparently; “Used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying – foreign ministers met but apparently failed to make progress”

I used it to suggest that, “people seem to think so.”

 

[4Horsemen]

This just shows a presumptuous attitude in regards to what the mind is, scientifically speaking, the brain is considered the physical manifestation of the mind and the two are synonymous, people seem to assume that the mind and consciousness exists as a separate entity but no credible evidence has ever been provided to support this claim.

There is an interesting thread that gets into some of these ideas, including the dualism of Descartes. I think it’s called “How the immaterial (Soul) affects the material (brain),” I don’t have the expertise, but I can say that we are persons (many saints referred to us as “souls”) having a spiritual aspect which is intellect and will and a material aspect which is nutritive (like plants and animals) and sensory (like animals). The person is an embodied soul. There is no “ghost in the machine” as in Cartesian philosophy.

That choice is a reflection of who we are and who we are is determined by previously existing factors. If that choice is not determined by our character and the things that determined our character then the choices would be arbitrary and would not necessarily relate to our desires or anything relevant to us. The choice to commit suicide is just as likely as the choice to drink water if choice is not determined in some manner if not entirely by the previous factors within our lives.

Then what do those “previously existing factors” consist of? I agree that “choice is a reflection of who we are”, but I want to know if you’d insert rational thought as an “existing factor.” The fact that you mentioned choice as determined by our character begs the question, “How is our character determined?”

Just viewing from statistics, I can see that the “choice to drink water” is many more times likely than “the choice to commit suicide.” Why do you think that would be? Are only a few people programmed by previous choices to commit suicide, and why do some people from similar background choose suicide and others choose to find help.

This just shows a gross misunderstanding of the biological terms “human” and “animal.” If you meant them philosophically then you might have to clarify what you meant by “human” and “animal.”

An animal has a nutritive and sensory existence, whereas a human has both and also a rational aspect of existence which we associate with the spiritual part of man we call the soul. The soul is the essence of who we are. It turns out on deeper analysis to have "a divine end or purpose which raises it above plant and animal souls in dignity. Human have an immortal soul.

The mind plays a large part in our decision making, even if it is determined without the mind the final result would be different.

Because you said above that brain and mind are synonymous, would you agree that brain can be substituted for mind in that last statement? What part does the mind play “in our decision making?” What else plays a part?

Often it is killing, the mother’s body can reject the fetus which results in the abortion. It’s a natural process and although you refer to this fetus being aborted as killing, the link there is unjustified. You asked what it was called if not killing, so I told you, abortion.

When an abortion (miscarriage) is spontaneous, then it’s not an “elective abortion” when the mother decides to get rid of the baby (her problem or her parents’ problem or her boyfriend/husband’s problem).

This is just ignoring the individual requirements of something to be considered alive and exchanging them instead for the term “dependence.”

I’m just saying that a human being’s state of dependence has nothing to do with his/her being alive. We can be independent or dependent and still alive.

As I told you it depends on the situation but yes, there are some cases where I would consider euthanasia but I could not tell you how I would feel at the time or what situations would or would not be acceptable to any great degree. I have never been confronted with a situation like that or the likely large lead up to it so I do not know how I would act in every situation, but some, certainly the great physical and emotional pain situations where I would.

IOW, You will make the decision when the time comes. So you are not pre-determined to make a choice.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

There is an interesting thread that gets into some of these ideas, including the dualism of Descartes. I think it’s called “How the immaterial (Soul) affects the material (brain),” I don’t have the expertise, but I can say that we are persons (many saints referred to us as “souls”) having a spiritual aspect which is intellect and will and a material aspect which is nutritive (like plants and animals) and sensory (like animals). The person is an embodied soul. There is no “ghost in the machine” as in Cartesian philosophy.

Here is where we change the debate into something less supported. The concept of a soul is often just a description of character and personality, whether they are actually the property of a supernatural “being” or not is inconclusive but there is certainly a lack of evidence suggesting that they are.

I find that people have gained a superiority complex over animals in every regard, yes, we are more capable at expressing morality, philosophy and intellect but that doesn’t mean that other animals are incapable of those things. Surprisingly enough though, these things relate to brain size so it seems likely that these concepts as a property of the mind are a result of the brain which lends to the conclusion that the mind and the brain are synonymous.

Then what do those “previously existing factors” consist of? I agree that “choice is a reflection of who we are”, but I want to know if you’d insert rational thought as an “existing factor.” The fact that you mentioned choice as determined by our character begs the question, “How is our character determined?”

Probably by our experiences and our genetics.

Just viewing from statistics, I can see that the “choice to drink water” is many more times likely than “the choice to commit suicide.” Why do you think that would be?

Most people have a conscious and instinctive “drive to survive” so the chances are that most people will act in favor of the actions that continue their life.

Are only a few people programmed by previous choices to commit suicide, and why do some people from similar background choose suicide and others choose to find help.

They may be similar but they are not the same, if they were the same, I could see no reason as to why the result would be any different. And by the same I mean exactly the same.

An animal has a nutritive and sensory existence, whereas a human has both and also a rational aspect of existence which we associate with the spiritual part of man we call the soul. The soul is the essence of who we are. It turns out on deeper analysis to have "a divine end or purpose which raises it above plant and animal souls in dignity. Human have an immortal soul.

This just seems to be an opinion, as far as I’m aware, “the soul” is nothing more than a concept to describe someones character, plenty of people believe i is a supernatural entity but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence or reason to conclude that. Animals are also rational to a degree, many are capable of problem solving, moral behavior and in general intellectual and creative capabilities, they don’t rival us but one would not expect so, our survival is a result of our intellect which is a result of our brain size and function. An animal is not as Dependant as us on intellect but they are not void of it.

Because you said above that brain and mind are synonymous, would you agree that brain can be substituted for mind in that last statement? What part does the mind play “in our decision making?” What else plays a part?

Instincts, the situation we’re in and the decision itself. There are probably other factors but these are some of the big ones.

When an abortion (miscarriage) is spontaneous, then it’s not an “elective abortion” when the mother decides to get rid of the baby (her problem or her parents’ problem or her boyfriend/husband’s problem).

When the mother decides to terminate the fetus, it is not called killing, it’s called an abortion, which is a process that describes the rejection of a fetus from the mother. Elective or other.

I’m just saying that a human being’s state of dependence has nothing to do with his/her being alive. We can be independent or dependent and still alive.

Well, according to the biological definition of life, the state of dependence does determine life, there are four capabilities on the requirements that a fetus is not capable of, I have listed three of them but another one is “reproduction”, that combined with the other three means that the fetus can not be classified as “alive” biologically.

IOW, You will make the decision when the time comes. So you are not pre-determined to make a choice.

That all depends, if the choice will surely come,then that makes the event predetermined? Why would my choice not be determined?

 

[Curious_Seed]

That applies to your statements about God!

Must be the London fog, or dyslexia . . . or both.

I know, I know, it applies to me.

Yup, both.

 

[4Horsemen]

Here is where we change the debate into something less supported. The concept of a soul is often just a description of character and personality, whether they are actually the property of a supernatural “being” or not is inconclusive but there is certainly a lack of evidence suggesting that they are.

Do you believe in an objective morality? All of our concepts, as well as logic, mathematics, science, etc . . . , are connected to universals (or laws) that have been put into place in the universe whether we exist or not. There is a realm outside our consciousness of propositions that exist objectively and apart from the human mind.

I find that people have gained a superiority complex over animals in every regard, yes, we are more capable at expressing morality, philosophy and intellect but that doesn’t mean that other animals are incapable of those things. Surprisingly enough though, these things relate to brain size so it seems likely that these concepts as a property of the mind are a result of the brain which lends to the conclusion that the mind and the brain are synonymous.

My dog is smart and knows over a dozen words, including the names of everyone in the family, but she can’t make moral decisions. In humans, brain size may be related to intelligence although Einstein had a normal brain size, but certain structures within were enlarged, especially related to mathematical thought. (That’s what I read anyhow when I googled brain size yesterday.)

Probably by our experiences and our genetics.

If our character is determined by “our experiences and genetics” as you stated, then you have to give some account of exactly how this works – that is, you have to say precisely what biological and cultural forces were responsible, how they formed our minds and so forth. Still, your response will necesarily depend on universals – like genetics, itself, is a universal concept. You will need logic, another universal, to defend your position.

They may be similar but they are not the same, if they were the same, I could see no reason as to why the result would be any different. And by the same I mean exactly the same.

Neither would be an individual in his/her own right but an exact copy, a clone. Even identical twins have differences.

This just seems to be an opinion, as far as I’m aware, “the soul” is nothing more than a concept to describe someones character, plenty of people believe i is a supernatural entity but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence or reason to conclude that. Animals are also rational to a degree, many are capable of problem solving, moral behavior and in general intellectual and creative capabilities, they don’t rival us but one would not expect so, our survival is a result of our intellect which is a result of our brain size and function. An animal is not as Dependant as us on intellect but they are not void of it.

Regarding soul, see my answer above on objective morality and universals. The soul belongs to this realm. Animals are capable of some problem solving, but prove to me your response that they are capable of “moral behavior and in general intellectual and creative capabilities.”

Instincts, the situation we’re in and the decision itself. There are probably other factors but these are some of the big ones.

We can still change our minds which necessitates free will. You seem to think we are programmed or determined to make a choice, which wouldn’t be free. So the woman who get an abortion is destined to do so? She can’t change her mind? Oh, she was destined to change her mind. A tautological argument.

When the mother decides to terminate the fetus, it is not called killing, it’s called an abortion, which is a process that describes the rejection of a fetus from the mother. Elective or other.

Sounds like “newspeak.” Or Brave New World where meanings of words are changed to fit some ideological program.

Well, according to the biological definition of life, the state of dependence does determine life, there are four capabilities on the requirements that a fetus is not capable of, I have listed three of them but another one is “reproduction”, that combined with the other three means that the fetus can not be classified as “alive” biologically.

The unborn child has all reproductive organs in place at around 8 weeks being fully formed just in need of development. A 1-year-old child isn’t ready for reproduction either. They will both have the capability if allowed to be born and not killed.

That all depends, if the choice will surely come,then that makes the event predetermined? Why would my choice not be determined?

It all depends on your definition of a human being. Either a human being has an intellect and free will or is a robot who can’t really think for himself but responds to whatever previous stimulii.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Do you believe in an objective morality?

I believe morals can be objective but I do not believe that anything is necessarily objectively moral or immoral. I’ve certainly come across no criterion to classify whether something is objectively right or wrong.

All of our concepts, as well as logic, mathematics, science, etc . . . , are connected to universals (or laws) that have been put into place in the universe whether we exist or not. There is a realm outside our consciousness of propositions that exist objectively and apart from the human mind.

I doubt the many conclusions you’ve made here, perhaps you could clarify with some evidence?

My dog is smart and knows over a dozen words, including the names of everyone in the family, but she can’t make moral decisions.

What of the dogs that jump into rivers and pools and save people? Even without training. They are also incapable of making moral decisions?

In humans, brain size may be related to intelligence although Einstein had a normal brain size, but certain structures within were enlarged, especially related to mathematical thought. (That’s what I read anyhow when I googled brain size yesterday.)

Brain size mostly only plays a part when comparing different species, generally the brain is of similar size between all members of the same species.

If our character is determined by “our experiences and genetics” as you stated, then you have to give some account of exactly how this works – that is, you have to say precisely what biological and cultural forces were responsible, how they formed our minds and so forth. Still, your response will necesarily depend on universals – like genetics, itself, is a universal concept. You will need logic, another universal, to defend your position.

I’m suggesting that our thought processes and our instinct are a product of the brain which is the product of our genetics. I’m also suggesting that our life experience is what makes us who we are, our character is determined by our life, what we have done and what has been done to us. If we did not have a brain and we had no previous life experience would there be any form of consciousness or character? Because that is what the alternative suggests, that something apart from these two factors exists within people as a completely separate entity, some people assert that this other thing has control and makes decisions but I see no reason to reach the conclusion that it even exists let alone it has any measure of control.

How is genetics a universal concept? What do you even mean by “universal concept”?

Logic is most certainly not universal, the laws of logic were created by humans and are based off of assumptions, there is no evidence to support the notion that logic is universally true, unless you would care to support that assertion?

Neither would be an individual in his/her own right but an exact copy, a clone. Even identical twins have differences.

Exactly and that’s why two people in similar situations end up with different results, thank you for illustrating my point.

Regarding soul, see my answer above on objective morality and universals. The soul belongs to this realm.

Yes and above just like here it is mere speculation, I have seen no evidence or reason to believe the soul is anything more than a description of the character of a person.

Animals are capable of some problem solving, but prove to me your response that they are capable of “moral behavior and in general intellectual and creative capabilities.”

When animals risk their lives to save others, I would call this “moral behavior”, and it occurs without training. Here are some examples.

We can still change our minds which necessitates free will. You seem to think we are programmed or determined to make a choice, which wouldn’t be free. So the woman who get an abortion is destined to do so? She can’t change her mind? Oh, she was destined to change her mind. A tautological argument.

She was destined to find the decision difficult, and her final result is determined by various factors, I’ve seen no reason or evidence to suggest the supernatural has anything to do with decision making.

Sounds like “newspeak.” Or Brave New World where meanings of words are changed to fit some ideological program.

Are you suggesting that when a woman aborts a fetus, it is not called an abortion?

The unborn child has all reproductive organs in place at around 8 weeks being fully formed just in need of development. A 1-year-old child isn’t ready for reproduction either. They will both have the capability if allowed to be born and not killed.

You aren’t paying attention, the reproduction issue combined with the other 3 issues is what determines the conclusion that the fetus cannot be considered biologically alive, 2 of the other three issues are not a problem after birth.

It all depends on your definition of a human being. Either a human being has an intellect and free will or is a robot who can’t really think for himself but responds to whatever previous stimulii.

In this response you have assumed several definitions and conclusions that are not necessarily applicable. Some of the terms I might need you to clarify are “free will” and “robot” and the conclusion I don’t understand is that the alternative to your definition of free will is something that cannot think for itself.

 

[tonyrey]

Must be the London fog, or dyslexia . . . or both.

I know, I know, it applies to me.

Yup, both.

I live on the coast where the sea breezes ensure that the view is not obscure!.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I live on the coast where the sea breezes ensure that the view is not obscure!.

That speaks for the air outside, but it can get stale inside, if the window is never opened, no?

 

[4Horsemen]

I believe morals can be objective but I do not believe that anything is necessarily objectively moral or immoral.
I doubt the many conclusions you’ve made here, perhaps you could clarify with some evidence?

1. Our beliefs are mental constructs based on what we understand to be true.
2. Truth is a universal which implies an objective reality.
3. Truth does not ultimately depend on physical events.
4. Our beliefs reflect what is rationally and objectively true if they are universally true.

What of the dogs that jump into rivers and pools and save people? Even without training. They are also incapable of making moral decisions?

Reading reports of humans who have done the same thing, that is, jumping into the water to save someone’s life, I find that the reason given is that it was instinctive (instinctual). I would say that for a dog to save a human’s life, it is probably based on instinct instead of a rational decision. However, there is some kind of rudimentary decision-making on the part of the dog (my dog looks at two toys and eyes them back and forth before grabbing one–maybe it’s the result of confusion not knowing which toy to take), but in the case of a hero human, the choice to save life, although dependent on earlier choices that form character, is still made to deny oneself for the sake of another taking a chance for his/her own life. The dog doesn’t understand its motives, but it reacts automatically to the stimulus.

Brain size mostly only plays a part when comparing different species, generally the brain is of similar size between all members of the same species.

Well, then, a whale should have a whale of a brain compared to a human, but which one is smarter? (I’d need to research brain size in animals. I don’t really know the brain size of a whale, but I’d expect it to be fairly large).

I’m suggesting that our thought processes and our instinct are a product of the brain which is the product of our genetics. . .

I get what you mean, and I agree wholeheartedly. The material aspect of ourselves is so deeply connected with the spiritual that we cannot have thoughts without the body (brain, nervous system). How they are connected is the puzzle and the subject of another thread I’m on. There is no “ghost in the machine.” Something does not exist in a person as a separate entity. That is Descartes idea (the soul is a substance). Nonetheless, a human has an intellect and free will, which is objectively true, that go “hand-in-hand”, so to speak, with our material brains.

How is genetics a universal concept? What do you even mean by “universal concept”?

Because there are some abstract ideas that are true whether we exist or not. Like numbers, geometrical forms, scientific truths, standards of logic, to name a few.

Logic is most certainly not universal. . . universally true, unless you would care to support that assertion?

It depends on the premise I guess. If the premise isn’t true, your syllogism is logical but presents a false conclusion.

Exactly and that’s why two people in similar situations end up with different results, thank you for illustrating my point.

It illustrates my point that two people from similar circumstances can choose differently because they have free will (another abstract universal concept).

Yes and above just like here it is mere speculation, I have seen no evidence or reason to believe the soul is anything more than a description of the character of a person.

O.K. But would you agree that it’s a spiritual aspect of a person. Afterall, character is something (a universal) that developed from previous conditions in life and the choices made due to hardship or in spite of it.

She was destined to find the decision difficult, and her final result is determined by various factors, I’ve seen no reason or evidence to suggest the supernatural has anything to do with decision making.

I didn’t say the “supernatural” had anything to do with anything. My point is her decision is due to free will (not because she was programmed or destined to get an abortion), if it was truly free.

Are you suggesting that when a woman aborts a fetus, it is not called an abortion?

No. Can you describe the various types of abortion and the result to the unborn child (fetus)? IOW, the question you should answer is “What is an abortion?” (Now don’t tell me about “termination of pregnancy” and other euphemisms.

You aren’t paying attention, the reproduction issue combined with the other 3 issues is what determines the conclusion that the fetus cannot be considered biologically alive, 2 of the other three issues are not a problem after birth.

That’s just your opinion. . . and Wikipedia, or where you got this definition. Maybe you’re misinterpreting it. Did it actually say that all conditions must be active all at the same time? Remember, the unborn have the basic necessities in their bodies and organs that will operate completely at birth. They are all there. (Watch the movie, Horton Hears a Who. Better yet, watch The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason.

In this response you have assumed several definitions and conclusions that are not necessarily applicable. Some of the terms I might need you to clarify are “free will” and “robot” and the conclusion I don’t understand is that the alternative to your definition of free will is something that cannot think for itself.

Free will: newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Robot: (I’ll let you do the research)

It’s the person who does the thinking for him/herself. Free will is not “something that cannot think for itself.”

 

[tonyrey]

That speaks for the air outside, but it can get stale inside, if the window is never opened, no?

I go outside regularly to enjoy the beauty of nature!

 

[John21652]

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

Is gravity an objective fact, or is it just an opinion?

 

[joemccarron]

In the “The existence of Objective Morality” thread, Pieman333272 made the claim that atheists are more likely to have [legal] abortions, have “mindless sex” (by which I assumed he meant casual sex), and watch porn.

Well, I provided some statistics that suggested his claim was wrong, but the strong implication from Pieman was that he feels that these activities are immoral, so I asked him what he felt were the objective ethical reasons why this was so.

He said he thought that the question was off-topic. I disagreed, but agreed to start a new thread. Here it is.

So, I invite contributors to pick one of those activities, and provide **objective **ethical reasons why it is wrong. By which, I mean that you have to provide good, solid rationales.

Thanks
W

You have to understand that someone who believes we were created by entirely the same mechanisms as cockroaches will not necessarily believe the same things about morality as someone who believes a loving God had a role in our creation. This is especially true when it come to issues of human life.

I believe murder is wrong because human life is a sacred gift from God and we are made in his image. Now atheists may try to say well I should believe murder is wrong because - 1)murdering people denies them their right to make free choices or some such, or 2)murdering people is wrong because if you allow it then you might get killed next or some such like that. 3)murdering people is wrong because it might cause them or someone else pain.(as though its ok as long as the person doesn’t have anyone that will miss them and you kill them painlessly) Etc. Etc.

Well sorry I don’t believe murder is wrong for any of those reasons. Now the fact is we tend to agree on allot of things because we tend to agree murdering people is wrong. But with killing the unborn we start to see our views separate.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Is gravity an objective fact, or is it just an opinion?

That all depends on if our senses are relaying information correctly, if they are then yes, it is an objective fact.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Is gravity an objective fact, or is it just an opinion?

I’d be happy to show you how it works. Meet me at the top of the Willis Tower, and you will be a believer.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

1. Our beliefs are mental constructs based on what we understand to be true.
2. Truth is a universal which implies an objective reality.

Agreed.

1. Truth does not ultimately depend on physical events.

Why not?

1. Our beliefs reflect what is rationally and objectively true if they are universally true.

So if our beliefs are universally true, they reflect what is rationally and objectively true. That’s a pretty big if.

Reading reports of humans who have done the same thing, that is, jumping into the water to save someone’s life, I find that the reason given is that it was instinctive (instinctual). I would say that for a dog to save a human’s life, it is probably based on instinct instead of a rational decision. However, there is some kind of rudimentary decision-making on the part of the dog (my dog looks at two toys and eyes them back and forth before grabbing one–maybe it’s the result of confusion not knowing which toy to take), but in the case of a hero human, the choice to save life, although dependent on earlier choices that form character, is still made to deny oneself for the sake of another taking a chance for his/her own life. The dog doesn’t understand its motives, but it reacts automatically to the stimulus.

So if a human does it, it’s a display of morality but if a dog does it it’s instinctive, what about one of the dogs in the link I provided you, he could smell carbon monoxide getting stronger and stronger within a household of a sleeping family, instead of running he stayed, barking and pawing at the family trying to wake them up and get them outside, he succeeded and without him the family could have died. Was this instinctive? How?

Well, then, a whale should have a whale of a brain compared to a human, but which one is smarter? (I’d need to research brain size in animals. I don’t really know the brain size of a whale, but I’d expect it to be fairly large).

All I’m trying to say is that brain size is generally similar within species.

I get what you mean, and I agree wholeheartedly. The material aspect of ourselves is so deeply connected with the spiritual that we cannot have thoughts without the body (brain, nervous system). How they are connected is the puzzle and the subject of another thread I’m on. There is no “ghost in the machine.” Something does not exist in a person as a separate entity. That is Descartes idea (the soul is a substance). Nonetheless, a human has an intellect and free will, which is objectively true, that go “hand-in-hand”, so to speak, with our material brains.

I have doubts that the “spiritual aspect” actually exists.

Because there are some abstract ideas that are true whether we exist or not. Like numbers, geometrical forms, scientific truths, standards of logic, to name a few.

Indeed but they are only given relevance and meaning by us.

It depends on the premise I guess. If the premise isn’t true, your syllogism is logical but presents a false conclusion.

As with all deductive arguments, can you show that the premise isn’t true?

TO BE CONTINUED!