Rational Mysticism?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Right and wrong are moral/ethical beliefs--which vary according to culture, society, and even on an individual level.

So the question becomes: can you prove that EVERY primitive man shared the exact same moral/ethical beliefs?

Because if you can't, then all you've been doing is making yourself look like a complete fool on this thread.

False. It doesn't matter what primitive man believed, morality is objective. Chopping off an innocent man's head or torturing another man for the hell of it is wrong. Belief is irrelevant.

Denied. Try again.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

False. It doesn't matter what primitive man believed, morality is objective. Chopping off an innocent man's head or torturing another man for the hell of it is wrong. Belief is irrelevant.

Plenty of primitive cultures and societies thought it moral to do just that: chop off an innocent man's head or torture them to death as part of human sacrifice and/or cannibalistic rituals. They felt no guilt in doing so--and, indeed, according to their faith, they were probably acting morally too.

What about them? Do they not count because they completely shatter what you're falsely attempting to argue?

If this is the basis for your argument, you're once again proving your ignorance in not differentiating between morality and law...and between positive law and natural law.

Oh...and now that you're making a feeble attempt at responding to questions...perhaps revisit the earlier two yes/no questions I was asking you? Or still too scared to try that topic?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Plenty of primitive cultures and societies thought it moral to do just that: chop off an innocent man's head or torture them to death as part of human sacrifice and/or cannibalistic rituals. They felt no guilt in doing so--and, indeed, according to their faith, they were probably acting morally too.

What about them? Do they not count because they completely shatter what you're falsely attempting to argue?

If this is the basis for your argument, you're once again proving your ignorance in not differentiating between morality and law...and between positive law and natural law.

Oh...and now that you're making a feeble attempt at responding to questions...perhaps revisit the earlier two yes/no questions I was asking you? Or still too scared to try that topic?

Irrelevant. Morality is still objective and natural law is the basis for man-made law.

Try again.

[umcpgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

False. Animals can't recognize the concept of right and wrong, man can, including primitive man.

Apples, oranges.

You might want to rethink that statement. Many studies of chimps, among other animals, refute the idea that animals don't know whats right and wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health...ity/index.html

"You might think of "morality" as special for humans, but there are elements of it that are found in the animal kingdom, says de Waal -- namely, fairness and reciprocity. His latest study, published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that chimpanzees may show some of the same sensibility about fairness that humans do.

The popular belief that the natural world is based on competition is a simplification, de Waal says. The strength of one's immune system, and the ability to find food, are also crucial. And many animals survive by cooperating.
"The struggle for life is not necessarily literally a struggle," he said. "Humans are a highly cooperative species, and we can see in our close relatives where that comes from."


Mammals such as wolves, orcas and elephants need their groups to survive, and empathy and cooperation are survival mechanisms. De Waal discusses these mechanisms in his 2009 book "The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society."
"We think that empathy evolved to take care of others that you need to take care of, especially, of course, between mother and offspring, which is universal in all the mammals," de Waal said."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/sc...anted=all&_r=0

"Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape.

These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality."

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Irrelevant. Morality is still objective and natural law is the basis for man-made law.

Try again.

I gave you an example of a belief system where murder and torture were an active part of morality for a culture or society. Unless you're trying to deny human sacrifice being part of the faith practices of different peoples, then your argument has absolutely no bearing.

The only reason morality is objective is because you're assuming that everyone is in 100% agreement of what's "moral" or "immoral." Which is ridiculous to the point of absurdity--but most of the things you say are.

Morality varies greatly between different peoples, cultures, and societies. The gap has lessened with religions growing more consolidated into just a few different faith patterns in modern society--but suffice it to say, the gap was far greater when there were hundreds of thousands of different religious belief systems spread out across the world.

Love the continued dodging of the other topic though. It's as if you sense the trap and are doing everything in your power to weasel away from it. Have to admit, it's hilarious. The great "anarchist" himself being shamed into silence because he sees the writing on the wall. Keep up the valiant efforts at trolling though.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by umcpgator

You might want to rethink that statement. Many studies of chimps, among other animals, refute the idea that animals don't know whats right and wrong.

I just read through your links and found nothing to indicate that animals have any capacity to recognize the concept of individual rights as it pertains to morality, which is the kind of right and wrong we are discussing here.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

I gave you an example of a belief system where murder and torture were an active part of morality for a culture or society. Unless you're trying to deny human sacrifice being part of the faith practices of different peoples, then your argument has absolutely no bearing.

Of course it does. It doesn't matter if some barbaric society believed that sacrificing children would bring them salvation from their angry sky gods. You can believe murder and torture are moral all you want, but again, morality is objective. It doesn't care what you believe. Murder and torture are wrong regardless of your values.

Sorry, try again.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Anyone else interested in attempting justify government extortion rackets?

Anyone at all?

[bluelang]

I'm very interested in seeing the list of objective moral rights and wrongs. Since it's objective it's gotta be codified somewhere, right?

[bluelang]

Actually, lemme make an assertion: you won't find a single credible philosophical or logical argument anywhere for morality being objective. That you would base an entire argument on such an obviously flawed premise should just remind us that you're here for no reason other than to amuse yourself for the tololols.

[oragator1]

This is an interesting discussion, but let me make a point outside of the current debate.

Morality and moral laws were all created for purposes of the larger good, whether one believes the premise that the individual societal rule is for the larger good or not. A human is sacrificed for the larger good (A good crop that will feed the larger group or calm an angry God who could wipe them out). Women wearing veils in the middle east is a sacrifice for social order, same with the anti-gay sentiment in the US which is also a social order determination. Promiscuity is to prevent unwanted babies and disease, etc, etc, etc. In all of these cases, someone is expected to give something up for the larger society. Then there are those created for individual freedom like murder, adultery etc, because the actions of one unfairly penalize another person, but the same concept applies. You are sacrificing your individual freedom to protect others. The third is altruism, which is the easiest one to see in animals, but that is seen to benefit the society as a whole as well with a perceived sacrifice even if minor.
If we take that broad definition of morality especially from an altruistic standpoint, female elephants help other females raise their young. The elephants sacrifice their time and energy to help the greater good. A right whale in the southern ocean recently adopted a stray and fed 2 calves at once (her own and the stray), which is nearly impossible to do, she had to know it would put her at risk but did it anyway. Monkeys adopted a human in Africa a decade or two ago, knowing it would affect their overall food supply and would require energy, but did it anyway. A female octopus dies protecting her eggs until they hatch.
All of these are for the greater good of their species even if we view how they are manifested or come to be observed sometimes as distorted, it's something that's hard wired into us and better thinking animals because it helps us prosper.
In that sense, Charts and Graphs is right, there is a basic moral code, but it's not something as simple as "murder is bad", it's more like "whatever is done that harms the greater good is bad". And in that sense many animals are every bit as "moral" as we are.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Actually, lemme make an assertion: you won't find a single credible philosophical or logical argument anywhere for morality being objective.

LOL, right, morality is whatever the government/collective says it is!

LOLOLOLOL!

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Of course, the intent and purpose of government is a collective body capable of enforcing a collective morality. Whether that's done effectively or not in any given example is largely irrelevant, but it does demonstrate the flaw in treating government like a wholly foreign being, separate from the people.

It is, as always, much easier to blame a concept than it is to blame ourselves.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Anyone else interested in attempting justify government extortion rackets?

Anyone at all?

Plenty of people have tried to come forward with explanations, you just aren't interested in listening. Like any good little troll, you're just interested in trolling. Carry on.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by oragator1

This is an interesting discussion, but let me make a point outside of the current debate.

Morality and moral laws were all created for purposes of the larger good, whether one believes the premise that the individual societal rule is for the larger good or not.
All of these are for the greater good of their species even if we view how they are manifested or come to be observed sometimes as distorted, it's something that's hard wired into us and better thinking animals because it helps us prosper.

In that sense, Charts and Graphs is right, there is a basic moral code, but it's not something as simple as "murder is bad", it's more like "whatever is done that harms the greater good is bad". And in that sense many animals are every bit as "moral" as we are.

If I'm understanding your point correctly, it's that humans/animals have a basic wiring/code to protect the species--ie: "the larger good." Which is absolutely true--and that would be an excellent example of natural law. Natural laws are, by definition, universal and apply to everyone equally.

Things like "protection of the species for the greater good" and "survival of the fittest" or "strength in numbers." All are universal maxims that apply to any group of people wherever they are found on the earth--and regardless of spiritual belief.

What Charts is doing is conflating natural law with humanist/Enlightenment principles and continuing to call it "natural law." Keep in mind, the humanist/Enlightenment movement was entirely European--and was rooted in Judeo-Christian philosophies as well.

The point that's been repeatedly made to him (and he's been ignoring this entire time) is that Judeo-Christian morality is NOT universally followed or observed. There are many common articles of faith between religions (don't murder, don't steal, etc)--but there are many variances depending on the religion in question. A Jew or a Christian might say that it's 100% wrong to kill another person except in self-defense. A Muslim might say it's ok under ____ circumstances. Or a South American tribe might say "it's murder to kill someone from your own tribe...but killing someone from another tribe isn't murder."

Those variances mean that morality isn't as black and white, cut & dry as Charts is trying to make it--and hence, NOT natural law. Laws that are influenced by morality are positive laws (ie: man-made laws).

As far as your last point goes--yes, in theory at least, natural law also applies to animals. And a growing legal trend used by environmental radicals and animal rights activists is to try and use the courts to extend legal rights to animals. It hasn't been too successful thus far--but they keep trying.

[Burke]

Ev12,

Humans exist. They have a nature, an identity. If they want to live and be happy, they need to behave in certain ways required by their nature. The fact that they have a choice and can behave in destructive ways does not negate that.

It makes it necessary.

The principles defining how they should behave are called morality.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Burke

Ev12,

Humans exist. They have a nature, an identity. If they want to live and be happy, they need to behave in certain ways required by their nature. The fact that they have a choice and can behave in destructive ways does not negate that.

It makes it necessary.

The principles defining how they should behave is called morality.

Not denying any of that Burke. Morality is important for every society/culture--even atheists recognize that.

But morality will vary to some degree when comparing across different cultures/societies.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

What Charts is doing is conflating natural law with humanist/Enlightenment principles and continuing to call it "natural law."

LOL, no.

OK, it's settled then. Government is little more than an institutionalized version of the Mafia and all objections to this comparison have been soundly refuted.

Good thread, gents.

[wargunfan]

There is no "objective" set of morals across religions and cultures. A Muslim girl is raped and her family responds by putting her to death in an "honor killing". Our culture deems that as murder. Her culture does not. The examples are endless. Morals are man made. One community accepts strip clubs; another deems them immoral. I have seen enough altruism in animals to believe that they understand a kind of morality. It would seem that natural law instructs them to "do the right thing".

[Burke]

Morality is not a social convention, although many think of it as such. If you were alone on an island, you would still need morality. You would need to be rational (a virtue), industrious (another virtue), and honest (even with yourself).

The problem most have with morality is that our prevailing morality is self-destructive:

Altruism, selflessness, and self-sacrifice.

We Objectivists, however, regard selfishness as a virtue.

If your standard of morality is your own life, you have an absolutely objective standard of morality.

Whether you are dead or alive is pretty absolute, and it is pretty objective.

In fact, it's only human life that has made the concepts "absolute" and "objective" possible.

Along with all other concepts.