| Author |
 Topic  |
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:06:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
Without becoming argumentative (as is NEVER the case in debate!), I have to disagree on one point. There IS definately an existance of 'morality'.
I'm not sure what that means. Do you think there is morality beyond what humans have created and believe? If you want to call rules of society morality, then I agree there is mortality. If you think morality is universal and is some kind of truth that lies beyond the invention of man, then I disagree. Perhaps we agree.
quote:
I too, actually will disagree with my apparant overestimation of free-will. Free-will is free. It is bottomless. How can that be over-estimated unless a tax is slapped upon it?
My point is that we don't have much of it. We think were making decisions based on our rational thought, but much of what we do is just reactions based cognitive rules that have evolved over our evolutionary history. Our brains are wired in ways that lead to certain decisions. People like Dennett and Pinker have written about this if you're interested.
quote:
And as for animals (and I love animals more than people!), I could provide you with a pretty lengthy list of how we two lifeforms differ. Oh. But your speaking of cognitive abilities. You see. That's just it. Animals can't speak.
But they do have languages. And those languages even differ regionally. How do you think animals communicate with each other?
quote:
You brought up God originally, stating a disbelief in that Entity, but agreeing in a conduct of morality settled upon by society(ies). I pointed out that religions have, since the history of mankind, PUSHED the idea of 'morality' onto the people...most of the time with dire consequences resulting from aberration from the norm...hence my labeling that as a governmental form. These are the rules you speak of...and they do require religion, cognition and belief in universal truths, because those are the things we think about! And if there are rules, there is morality!
And my point is that those rules exist in other animal societies, so obviously they don't require religion. Cognition and belief is harder to say. Something either cognitive or innate has to prescribe the costs and benefits of animals using different sets of behaviors.
I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope you are as well.
Let's suppose we are talking about human philosophy, not the philosophy of a may-or-may-not-be higher entity, and not the philosophy of animals. They simply do not exist to us...they make no sense to us, and they shouldn't. If we attempt to dissect a higher intelligence in an animal, we are heaping our own vanities upon them, and then feeling like we have cracked a code! Rediculous!
So let's stick to plain old folk.
1) What I mean, as I've stated previously, is simple and precise. Forget the furrowed brow and put aside the thinking cap. Look around. Everyone operates on morality. Right and wrong. Some adopt an eye for an eye. Some murder for pleasure. Some aid the sick for money. Some go to church. Some don't work. Some overeat and enjoy it. Some stay thin and enjoy it. Some help children. Some harm children. Some stay married. Some are never merry. Some play sports. Some hunt. Some fish. Many never eat what they hunt. Some eat only vegetables. Some like Frank Black. Some people burned the Beatles. The list is endless, because all you have to do is look around. These are all choices made, and all have consequences good or bad to themselves. These are codes of conduct of people, shared by many and not shared by many, but universal within our species. These are moralities, because simply we have the ability to cast a negative response when we do not agree. Morality exists.
2) We have endless free-will. I am understanding where you are coming from on this point, however. BUT, if we are only utilizing a certain percent of our brain power, which is what I think you are driving at, then wouldn't free-will explode a million fold if suddenly we had another 90% of thought to work with? Yes we are only to a certain point in evolution. There's nothing we can do about that...EXCEPT utilize free-will. I really have never like the term of only using '10% of our brain' because I believe if we suddenly had access to 50% more, maybe only 15% more, we'd find mathematics useless and void. There would be no more percentages because a new level of concsious thought or even existance would apply itself. We live in a universe of spheres and circles. All mathematics point to this shape. Everything is round. Our thoughts are round because we have limitless tangents to spider off onto. And yet our lives will always remain on one straight line. Even if we choose choice A over B, we will always continue down one straight line to our death. A straight line through a universe of spheres. And it will remain that way until we evolve a little more. We will just have to wait. But that's a whole other thing.
3) Yes animals do communicate with each other AND us. However their interaction with us is in a limited form. What I was trying to focus on was the obvious fact that they cannot speak with tongue to us in english or spanish or any other form of human spoken language. Remember I'm keeping this human. Not in speculation of animal philosophy. It doesn't apply...in my opinion.
4) I guess I am very confused by your application of animals to this discussion. I would like to understand how you feel it so necessary to bring these furry delights (or scaley, or prickly) into the quest for human morality or justification of means to ends.
To boil this all down simply, I am trying to say I agree that moralities differ from one individual to the next...call them codes or ethics if you like. What I think you're grappling with may be the fact that you don't like people telling you how to act, what to feel, when to eat, who to sleep with, etc. None of us like these. But these are responses from people based on their morals. They can express this freely-of-will. Don't close your eyes to morality. That would be immoral to yourself. It exists, and it's a wonderful educator of mind and spirit and body. You don't have to agree with morality (because it is universal, you see?) but you must agree with yourself...that's the first, best moral obligation.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
 |
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:20:04
|
I just want to say that there is no such word as 'diculous'. Therefore, you cannot do it more than once and so the prefix 're' is equally out of place.
The word is ridiculous (from ridicule, i.e. to make fun of). It isn't even supposed to be pronounced with a hard 'e' except for comic effect. This is all irrelevant and I'm a jackass for ridiculing "rediculous" (or a lover of irony, whichever) but it's a pet peeve of mine for some reason. Sorry. Now carry on your much more interesting debate.
 "Oh dear / I seem to have joined the Cult of Frank." |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:29:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
I just want to say that there is no such word as 'diculous'. Therefore, you cannot do it more than once and so the prefix 're' is equally out of place.
The word is ridiculous (from ridicule, i.e. to make fun of). It isn't even supposed to be pronounced with a hard 'e' except for comic effect. This is all irrelevant and I'm a jackass for ridiculing "rediculous" (or a lover of irony, whichever) but it's a pet peeve of mine for some reason. Sorry. Now carry on your much more interesting debate.
"Oh dear / I seem to have joined the Cult of Frank."
"...and I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
Edited by - TRANSMARINE on 04/01/2005 09:29:46 |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:42:59
|
Professor Hyde White?!
__________
This is the war and not the warning. |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 13:19:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
Professor Hyde White?!
__________
This is the war and not the warning.
"Zoinks! That witch doctor sure has flipped his wig!"
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 13:21:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
Let's suppose we are talking about human philosophy, not the philosophy of a may-or-may-not-be higher entity, and not the philosophy of animals. They simply do not exist to us...they make no sense to us, and they shouldn't. If we attempt to dissect a higher intelligence in an animal, we are heaping our own vanities upon them, and then feeling like we have cracked a code! Rediculous!
So let's stick to plain old folk.
I don't want to stick to humans. My whole point is that animals have behavioral rules just like humans. And, cracking the code of why animals do what they do is what I do for a living. I don't know why it should make no sense to us.
quote:
1) What I mean, as I've stated previously, is simple and precise. Forget the furrowed brow and put aside the thinking cap. Look around. Everyone operates on morality. Right and wrong. Some adopt an eye for an eye. Some murder for pleasure. Some aid the sick for money. Some go to church. Some don't work. Some overeat and enjoy it. ..... These are all choices made, and all have consequences good or bad to themselves. These are codes of conduct of people, shared by many and not shared by many, but universal within our species. These are moralities, because simply we have the ability to cast a negative response when we do not agree. Morality exists.
I'm confused. They're shared by many but not shared by many, but universal. Here's my point:
We all know that we're not suppose to kill other people, particularly if they're in our group. We also know we really shouldn't sleep with our sister or our mother. And, we know if we break these rules we are going to be punished by our society.
My point:
These same rules exist in many, many animal societies. It's doesn't take God or higher cognitive abilities for an animal society to develop rules of conduct. Now are you going to say non-human animals have morality? If not, then what about us gives us morality? Or, they just rules with no higher spiritual or philosophical purpose or needed interpretation?
quote:
2) We have endless free-will. I am understanding where you are coming from on this point, however.
My point is that we aren't actively making choices. Biology is largely dictating our behavior. Read Pinker and Dennett if interested.
quote:
4) I guess I am very confused by your application of animals to this discussion. I would like to understand how you feel it so necessary to bring these furry delights (or scaley, or prickly) into the quest for human morality or justification of means to ends.
I think I've been pretty clear about why I brought into the conversation.
quote:
What I think you're grappling with may be the fact that you don't like people telling you how to act, what to feel, when to eat, who to sleep with, etc.
Not at all. That's not my point or complaint.
quote:
Don't close your eyes to morality. That would be immoral to yourself. It exists, and it's a wonderful educator of mind and spirit and body. You don't have to agree with morality (because it is universal, you see?)
That's exactly what I disagree with. "It exists." What is It? How can it be universal? What does that even mean? I wrote this earlier, "I'm not sure what that means. Do you think there is morality beyond what humans have created and believe? If you want to call rules of society morality, then I agree there is mortality. If you think morality is universal and is some kind of truth that lies beyond the invention of man, then I disagree. " |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2005 : 08:39:46
|
Darwin, animals did not string together the words "the end justifies the means."
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
Edited by - TRANSMARINE on 04/04/2005 08:40:59 |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 18:29:23
|
Sure, they did! They just did it in their own languages. For instance, "the ends justifies the means" in Donkey is "hee-haw hee bray hee-haw."
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2005 : 04:33:10
|
What a load of ass!
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
|
|
|
Thomas
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1615 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2005 : 06:04:37
|
The end never justifies the means unless you start a topic about it and the Forum makes Googles top ten search on the subject.
"Our Love is Rice and Beans and Horses Lard" |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2005 : 16:59:36
|
But was that IceCream's end in starting this thread?
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The end justifies the means.
