|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 11, 2013 15:27:44 GMT -8
Lol na I just went off debating for a bit. I participate in these threads because I enjoy the debate and enjoy the stimulation, not to try change people's minds. You're still not answering my initial question though, which is how moral universalism is distinct from evolutionary altruism. All human actions and values have been explained by evolutuonary altruism, so moral universalism is an unnecessary belief until you highlight what the distinction between the two is. Unless you think they're the same thing, but then I wouldn't understand why you'd be arguing with me in the first place. Morals aren't a means to explain things, though. They're a means to recommend things.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 11, 2013 17:45:48 GMT -8
No, the idea that morals actually exist isn't needed to explain anything.
We know why people believe in morals, and morals don't actually need to exist t explain that.
If a guy takes a a hullicinogen and claims to have seen a dragon, people won't believe he saw a dragon because we know the reason hwy be believes he saw a dragon was because of the drug. The drug explains why he thinks he saw a dragon, without actually requiring the dragon to exist. Morality is basically like the dragon. Evolutionary altruism is the drug that explains why people believe in morality without morality actually existing.
No one has actually provided an argument for morality existing that doesn't revolve around saying that we simply believe in it, or that we 'ought' to do things. All that does is show an emotional disposition, it doesn't actually provide a reasn to believe it exists.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 11, 2013 18:03:59 GMT -8
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 11, 2013 20:10:56 GMT -8
I get what you're saying.
But what you're not explaining what the difference is between saying 'morals exist' and 'emotions exist'. If morals and emotions are the same thing, then all you're doing is calling evolutionary altruism morality, but then I don't understand why you'd be arguing with me in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 11, 2013 20:41:52 GMT -8
No no, morals and emotions are not the same. Anger is an emotion. Righteous anger is an emotion with a moral foundation.
And I was serious about the book. It's incredible.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 11, 2013 20:54:26 GMT -8
That's essentially just anger, just that you think it's 'righteous'.
There is no physiological difference between the two.
Again, your concept of 'righteousness' just comes from evolutionary altruism. Evolutionary altruism explains why you believe in concepts such as righteousness without them actually needing to exist anywhere outside of our ideals. These concepts are simply just emotional dispositions as a result of the altruism we've evolved. There's no reason to believe they're anything more than that.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 11, 2013 20:59:40 GMT -8
Lol it's not the same dude. There are literally different things going on in the brain when it comes to moral issues. People react differently behaviorally as well. Check your assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 11, 2013 23:40:21 GMT -8
No one has actually provided an argument for morality existing that doesn't revolve around saying that we simply believe in it, or that we 'ought' to do things. All that does is show an emotional disposition, it doesn't actually provide a reasn to believe it exists. See, ethics is literally the branch of philosophy that deals with "ought" questions. So, the answer to "why does ethics exist" is "because 'ought' questions exist". You're a nihilist - you believe that all "ought" questions have no meaningful answer. That's your prerogative, but the questions still exist and you're really being a bit silly here by continuing to insist that an entire topic of human discussion doesn't exist. You might as well say "religion doesn't exist".
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 12, 2013 2:32:57 GMT -8
Lol it's not the same dude. There are literally different things going on in the brain when it comes to moral issues. People react differently behaviorally as well. Check your assumptions. We react in ways which are evolutionarily benefitial to social creatures. This is why most social creatures will react in similar ways to similatuations, and insocial creatures will react differently. And no, there aren't different things going on in the body. If I get angry because I accidently cut myself trying to cut an onion, and if I get angry at someone who stole from a kid, both times I a experiencing a drop in dopamine and a rise seratonin (it might be the other way around actually, can never remember) whilst simultaneously experiencing an adrenaline spike. Magic- If we're using the religion analogy, I'm saying that God doesn't exist simply because religion does. You guys would essentially be saying that God does exist because of religion. I would be saying that we don't need God to explain the exisence of religion, because we know why humans believe in religion. There is a difference between saying 'I think we shouldn't do X for Y reasons' and saying 'it is morally wrong to do X'. I'm only opposed to the latter. 'Morality' or 'ought' should never be a reason for doing something, because those concepts don't actually explain why they shouldn't do it. For every act that people are universally against (murder, rape etc.) you can explain your reasoning behind condemming them without having to resort to concepts such as morality or ought. They're simply redundant concepts. This is specifically why secular people take issue with religious people imposing their theological morality on them. Secular people don't understand for example, why gays shouldn't be able to have sex, because religious people can't explain why without resorting to 'immoral' and 'ought'.
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Mar 12, 2013 22:00:36 GMT -8
And no, there aren't different things going on in the body. If I get angry because I accidently cut myself trying to cut an onion, and if I get angry at someone who stole from a kid, both times I a experiencing a drop in dopamine and a rise seratonin (it might be the other way around actually, can never remember) whilst simultaneously experiencing an adrenaline spike. > implying we have anywhere near a complete scientific model of the brain
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 12, 2013 22:03:12 GMT -8
We don't need a complete scientific model of the brain to know that everything regarding the mind is phsyiological. I mean, we're currently on the verge of technology that is capable of downloading people's thoughts for crying out loud.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Mar 15, 2013 14:57:26 GMT -8
Hey you guys don't mind if I post something relevant to the thread's purpose do you?
Anyway, there are some who say that homosexuality is wrong simply on the merit that it is inherently perverse and/or wrong. Often people who say this further their point by saying something along the lines of "if homosexuality is okay then whose to say that pedophilia, incest and polygamy isn't okay."
For those of you on this thread who actually believe in morallity, what are your thoughts on that position/ the above listed "vises". Personally I think its a bit much to compare pedophilia to homosexuality because there is more then just inherent perversity coming into play as to why it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 15, 2013 15:15:03 GMT -8
Oh lol right, this thread's supposed to be about homosexuality.
I think the typical argument is that an equal and loving relationship can exist between two men or two women, but not between a man and a child or a man and his 8 wives. Incest is a different case, as it simply produces messed up kids.
You could alternatively look at it from an evolutionary perspective, which is always fun for me. In this view, incest (genetically inferior kids) and pedophilia (child unable to have kids/take care of kids) are obviously detrimental. You'd think polygamy works, as the man has more offspring, but he's less able to invest and take care of his children. Homosexuality, from this view, also seems to have little value--which, interestingly, is why many people have an intuitive negative reaction to seeing gay couples kissing (especially gay men). However, gay couples don't produce genetically inferior children and they're able to take care of their children (whether biological or adopted), and so it works out okay.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Mar 15, 2013 16:11:56 GMT -8
Oh lol right, this thread's supposed to be about homosexuality. I think the typical argument is that an equal and loving relationship can exist between two men or two women, but not between a man and a child or a man and his 8 wives. Incest is a different case, as it simply produces messed up kids. You could alternatively look at it from an evolutionary perspective, which is always fun for me. In this view, incest (genetically inferior kids) and pedophilia (child unable to have kids/take care of kids) are obviously detrimental. You'd think polygamy works, as the man has more offspring, but he's less able to invest and take care of his children. Homosexuality, from this view, also seems to have little value--which, interestingly, is why many people have an intuitive negative reaction to seeing gay couples kissing (especially gay men). However, gay couples don't produce genetically inferior children and they're able to take care of their children (whether biological or adopted), and so it works out okay. On the note of incest... If a brother and sister were sterile, do you think it would then be okay for them to be in a romantic relationship?
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 15, 2013 16:20:33 GMT -8
Child molestation's only wrong because the child can't generally give informed consent. There's nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to the prepubescent form (which is what paedophilia actually means - please distinguish between the preference and the act, guys).
Likewise, incest is usually a problem because it's inherently exploitative (same reason therapist-patient and teacher-student relationships are a problem; close family members typically have strong disparities in authority) or because you end up with genetic disorders in children.
Polygamy... I don't really see the problem with allowing it, so long as everyone agrees of their own free will.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Mar 15, 2013 16:21:06 GMT -8
Besides adopting or having surrogate children, gay people can take an avuncular role, which benefits the species, too. There are studies from Malaysia about this phenomenon. Basically, a gay uncle can help "tend the nest" to boost the success of the family. Also, "nature" just means "culture." I've done hours and hours of study on the develop of physin/taxin/natura in Western civilization, and the academic consensus is that "natural" just means "cultural." However, it's interesting that while they mean the same thing, the former carries more weight in the minds of the uninformed. Plato actually fantasized about influencing Athenian behavior by convincing the public that something was against nature/culture, and he gives incest as an example. Of course his fantasies became reality; pederasty has become culturally unacceptable. Agent Syrup, have you watched that video I linked previously? If you're really interested in this discussion, I encourage you to invest the hour in watching the best pro-gay Christian presentation I've seen to date.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Mar 15, 2013 16:30:01 GMT -8
Personally I think its a bit much to compare pedophilia to homosexuality because there is more then just inherent perversity coming into play as to why it is wrong. By "it" I was refering to pedophilia not homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Mar 15, 2013 17:38:55 GMT -8
And WaterWizard I did watch the video. And I am still looking into somethings about the Bible and homosexuality.
Actually do you have any imput on what the Bible means when the phrse "sexual imorality" is used. Some people say that it refers to the Levitical (or just Old Testiment in general) rules concerning sexuality. If that is true then Christ himself spoke against homosexuality (indirectly).
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 15, 2013 19:08:20 GMT -8
Besides adopting or having surrogate children, gay people can take an avuncular role, which benefits the species, too. There are studies from Malaysia about this phenomenon. Basically, a gay uncle can help "tend the nest" to boost the success of the family. Also, "nature" just means "culture." I've done hours and hours of study on the develop of physin/taxin/natura in Western civilization, and the academic consensus is that "natural" just means "cultural." However, it's interesting that while they mean the same thing, the former carries more weight in the minds of the uninformed. Plato actually fantasized about influencing Athenian behavior by convincing the public that something was against nature/culture, and he gives incest as an example. Of course his fantasies became reality; pederasty has become culturally unacceptable. Agent Syrup, have you watched that video I linked previously? If you're really interested in this discussion, I encourage you to invest the hour in watching the best pro-gay Christian presentation I've seen to date. Natural and cultural aren't the same thing. I think you need to specify what fields of study these academics come from, because they're in disagreement with many scientists and other academics. 'Natural' represents our physiological needs and dispositions, and these are universal to all cultures. 'Culture' is a social development which occurs as a result of environmental stimulus and hightened intelligence. This is why only the more intelligent animals, such as the higher primates, have culture, and lower sentience animals don't. For example, it is natural for chimpanzees to consume insects. This was their original source of protein before they developed a taste for meat. In different clans, they have developed different methods of acquiring these insects. The variances in foraging are cultural, because they are psychological developments, not physiological. A clearer example is that is natural for humans to desire nourishment, because we need it survive. Now if a culture decides to ban the consumption of food, that isn't 'natural' at all. Despite this ban, they still have a natural or physiological desire for food. This is why the desire for homosexuality and other non-marital sexual activities has not ceased since they were condemmed by Arbrahamic religion. We know there is a difference between nature and culture because higher intelligence animals have the ability to deviate from healthy practices and they have a greater variance in their behaviours than lower intelligence species. And to whoever said that Christians compare homosexuality to pedophaelia, to be fair most reasonable Christians don't think homosexuality is as bad as that.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 16, 2013 2:26:14 GMT -8
Paedophilia isn't any worse than any other kind of sexual preference.
Child molestation is worse than consensual sex between adults.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Mar 23, 2013 9:48:13 GMT -8
Okay so in regard to Matthew Vines.... I gave it some thought and I feel like he ultimatly has weak arguments.
To counter what is said in Leviticus he basically brought up that "in Christ we are free from the law". However even though there are Jewish customs Christians no longer have to follow (like circumsion) there are plenty of Old Testiment mandates we still do follow. And every single sexual prohibition in Leviticus still holds up for Christians, there isn't really any biblical grounds to single out homosexuality as an exception.
And with the passage in Romans. Matthew Vines compares it to the head covering passage in Corinthians 11 and says that the Romans passage should be taken culturally, but even if the word "unnatural" were to be replaced with "culturally unaccepted" the passage still seems to against homosexual acts. Right before homoseuality is brought up Paul is talking about the evils of idoletry, and right after homosexuality is brought up Paul is talking about men being given over to their depraved minds and doing what not ought to be done (envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice) Basicallly given the context (God's wrath against evil), it wouldn't make sense for Paul to be talking about homosexuality in a purly cultural sense. Also homosexuality is not just refered to as unnatural (or uncultural) but also as "sexual impurity", "shameful lust", "indecent", and "perverse".
I have nothing to say regarding the other verses mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Mar 23, 2013 13:50:37 GMT -8
And every single sexual prohibition in Leviticus still holds up for Christians, there isn't really any biblical grounds to single out homosexuality as an exception. That is two verses prior to the same-sex intercourse proscription and yet is no longer observed. Further, many in the early church argued that all Christians are our family now, so the proscriptions against incest in Leviticus mean that Christians are not to have sex at all. Jesus said in Mark 3:35, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” There was a huge movement in the first few centuries for all Christians to abstain from sex. See "Sex and the Single Savior" by Dale Martin for more. Also, would you describe some specific laws in the OT that you feel you are commanded to follow today? Are your actions ever influenced by remembering which Levitical rules to follow? If so, I'm sure they are very important to you; perhaps at some point you have made a list of which laws still apply to you? I'd be interested in seeing that list. As for your Romans 1 comments, you make good points! I'll engage you about those later; I have to take a nap. EDIT: Dre, I will get back to your nature/culture questions at some point. I think we're talking about different things. I wasn't clear enough.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 24, 2013 0:12:49 GMT -8
I thought God made it pretty clear that he considered sexual activity outside marriage sinful, so homosexuality would qualify under that.
When I was a devout Catholic, that is how I looked at it. I viewed gays in the same light as I did heterosexuals that participated in non-marital sexual activity, which was basically that I didn't make a moral judgement on them, I just thought something they were doing was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 24, 2013 2:24:50 GMT -8
How is "what you are doing is wrong" not a moral judgement?
|
|
|
Post by David the Chansey on Mar 24, 2013 7:53:08 GMT -8
I believe the quote I'm thinking of here for you Christians is: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Mar 24, 2013 8:14:55 GMT -8
I changed the title of the thread. =p
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Mar 24, 2013 8:59:01 GMT -8
Please don't get vulgar. It's one thing to talk about to have a talk about sexuality but getting into personal experiences is.... well its a rather rude actually.
Private sexual activities should remain just that: private.
EDIT: Well now the the post I was responding to was deleted should I get rid of this post? Or perhaps keep it just for... whatever sake?
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Mar 24, 2013 12:34:59 GMT -8
I identify as asexual, leaning towards gray-A.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 24, 2013 13:50:48 GMT -8
Yeah no. Stay on topic: this is a moral debate.
|
|
|
Post by GGFan on Mar 24, 2013 14:51:30 GMT -8
Why was my post deleted? Masturbation is a perfectly normal, healthy activity.
|
|