- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,138
- Reactions
- 12,766
But let me ask you this
If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?
Would morality still exist ?
I don't know, it's like arguing with a wall.
Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?
I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.
Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?
I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.
All the other cases you quoted, whether they are good or bad require A MAN AND A WOMAN.
Nature discriminates against gays having children. Evolution that is supposed to decide the best outcome for the species and it's been doing that for 4 billion years.
I'm quite happy to stick with that and say that anything else is Frankenstein science designed to achieve a social objective, and that is immoral in my opinion.
But let me ask you this
If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?
Would morality still exist ?
Of course it will still exists.
The only thing that didn't exists until discovered are the Americas, the Native Indians, Australia and its Aborigines.
But let me ask you this
If the Universe was devoid of life would gravity still exist ?
Would morality still exist ?
Morality exists in a universe devoid of life ?
Does love exist if there is no one to love ?
Come on, these are CONCEPTS not laws, they are products of sentient minds and we define them how we choose.
"The Way that can be defined is not the Original Way" - Lao Tzu
So the love that is defined by people is not True Love. True love cannot be defined. Therefore, love exists regardless of people or being exists or not to define them.
Doesn't seem logical to me Captain
If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?
The second question is more serious. It’s supposed to be the same question, but you will see that it isn’t. This question is, as it was put to me: Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? It is neither. The basis for morality is conventional, which means the rules of morality were fabricated by human beings over many generations. These rules are: to abstain from injury, to abstain from lying, theft, assault, killing, and so forth. These rules were not the invention of God. No one in this room imagines that if there were not a God to tell us these things, we would not know any better. No one in this room thinks that if God had not told us this, if God had not delivered these rules to Moses, then we would not see anything wrong with my stealing, assaulting, and killing.
The usual religious response - my personal experience.
If that's not enough proof you'll burn in hell
If "True Love" cannot be defined then how can we know it exists at all ?
"True" love, as apposed to what, "false" love. When dealing with loaded terms such as that each user of the word probably has a different definition, so it's probably best to get the user of the term to define it for you before they carry on with their monologue.
However, when it comes to love as with a range of other emotions, they are emergent properties of physical brains and we can see physical signs of them when we conduct brain scans, and we also see people who become incapable of certain emotions when certain parts of the brain is damaged, so I wouldn't say we can't prove its existence.
You point about emotions being a product of physical brains leads to the question of whether morality is also a product of brains, not an underlying quality of the Universe. I don't know whether the answer is relevant to anything or if there really is any point arguing about it.
I think it's quite possible that a race of beings with a different brain structure may come up with a different version of morality than we do, and may use a different set of rules to do so; eg they may think that the only things that matters is survival of the species and anything that might prevent that must be destroyed. It's pretty hard to argue that that viewpoint is "wrong" from their perspective, we make our own rules so why shouldn't they be able to do the same ?
Morality is not affected by opinion, whether that's our opinion or the opinion of an alien race. .
That's where you are wrong.
What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.
Remember it's based on the well being of thinking beings, we don't make the rules, what will cause another thinking being to suffer and there by reducing its well being is a matter of fact not opinion.
The "well being of thinking beings" can be distorted as much as you like.
e.g. The A bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The justification was that these actions would have saved many more lives. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified or not according to "your" rules ?
Other people will disagree with you whatever you say because they have their own rules. Who is to say which set of rules provides the "most moral" option ?
Secondly, how do you define "thinking being" ? Does a dog think ? A cat ? A cow ? They all have brains. Why would you eat one of them and keep the others as pets ?
Value Collector said:That's why I said some of the things we do now, might be considered gross immorality in 100years, and that doesn't mean it was moral when we did it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?