re: Do You Believe in Absolute Morality?

quote:

---

I believe it "evolved"

you believe wrong. what you are describing is socio-cultural behavior. rousseau's social contract. utilitarianism. pragmatism. etc.

---

Not all behavior is learned.. instinct for example. Plus, there are clearly genetics involved in which traits (both physical and behavioral) are strongly expressed.

quote:

---

Not all behavior is learned.. instinct for example. Plus, there are clearly genetics involved in which traits (both physical and behavioral) are strongly expressed.

---

Finalky!!! You agree that gender roles are biologically embedded in us!!

quote:

---

Finalky!!! You agree that gender roles are biologically embedded in us!!

---

... no shite?

Maybe.

quote:

---

Not all behavior is learned.. instinct for example. Plus, there are clearly genetics involved in which traits (both physical and behavioral) are strongly expressed

---

what does this have to do with morality. nothing

quote:

---

And you were wrong

---

not that you showed any such thing. typical crap response. let me know when you're ready to actually explain how it was wrong

quote:

---

No and it does not need to be

---

completely idiotic and contradictory response which i would expect from you. if you aren't claiming that your characterization is objective, then why should anyone listen to you genius

quote:

---

let me know when you're ready to actually explain how it was wrong

---

Because we are biological machines and are nothing more than the sum of our parts. Pretty simple concept.

quote:

---

if you aren't claiming that your characterization is objective, then why should anyone listen to you genius

---

Objectivity might be important if we were trying to measure something other than your ego

quote:

---

ah, scientism. so you've figured out what no scientist has ever been able to figure out; qualia, perception, tip of the tongue phenomenon, inability to tickle yourself phenomenon, deja vu, identity, consciousness, sentience, development of culture, perception of freewill, etc.

---

This is effectively the tired god of the gaps argument

quote:

---

quote:
The origins of morality are merely an extension of instinct and the natural urge for the species to survive further built upon by self awareness
wrong. species often behave in was that are contrary to survival. for example, nazis were ok with euthanizing the infirmed. however, humanity as a whole is against that. why waste resources on defective human beings? we do so for moral reasons, not for survival reasons.

quote:
"wrong" is anything that you would not want done to you, as anything bad for you is slightly bad for the species overall
incorrect, again. social mores vary from culture to culture. and, you are proving my point with this statement: EVERYONE believes in absolute morality, even when denying it.

quote:
Won't know until you cross over if it is true or fade into nothing if it isn't
we can know if the source of morality has revealed it to us and in fact, there is proof that it has indeed happened.

quote:
Reality is in your mind for the most part
it's interesting to watch uninitiated people try to blithely erase a centuries old entire epistemic philosophy (in this case, empiricism) with a broad superficial assertion. care to address "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu"?

quote:
We all agree things are "real" because of a shared sensory response in our brains
wow. first, "real" is a slippery not used in epistemology because it is imprecise. second, there is no such shared response. the closest thing to what you are describing is kant's sythethic a priori reasoning.

quote:
There is no proof that anything is actually "real" outside of us agreeing that we experience the same feelings in the same situations
again, completely misinformed. while we do not know das ding an sich, even hume agreed we know plenty of "real" things.

quote:
Morality is the same in a regard
category mistake. morality is not proven "real" in the same way a chair is proven "real." the former is metaphysical (noumenal). the latter is physical (phenomenal).

---

Look at the big brain on Brad

quote:

---

This is effectively the tired god of the gaps argument

---

first, you're defending your position by attacking another, basically changing the subject. second, that is NOT the god of the gaps argument because i didn't say that those things are proof that god exists. third, the god of the gaps argument is not wrong, simplicatur. but you knew that, right?

having said that, care to try again? explain how your self admitted non-objective statement is an objective proof.

let me save you some time, you're on the losing end of this one. swim to shore. rethink your position