next »

[im9today]

Our empathic abilities aren't fully developed until we come out of puberty. Small children are especially incompetent when it comes to being nice.

But yes, I'm talking about instincts that we've gotten from evolution. Like not hurting our children and relatives. I can't remember any specific studies, but I think it has been established that those feeling spill over to bigger groups that to your closest family.

But it doesn't really matter if we get those feelings from biology or culture (I think it's quite a bit of both). As the situation is now, we have those feelings and they motivate us to create ethics.

Yeah, but you don't have to stop there - that's just a codified survival strategy, like communism or libertarianism, or whatever Paul Eres believes.  You can keep going, see where the logic takes you, ditch the arbitrary qualifiers.

most of the good people that believe in god probably dont stay up during the am hours debating on the internet. they have more important things to do. maybe if you got better sleep your mind would work better and you could think more clearly about these issues.

Jesus argued with people in temples and marketplaces, which is what they had before the internet.  Don't disrespect.

wrong. jesus doesnt argue, he teaches. wise up atheists, before its too late.

He didn't get to the squabbling point because everybody except for Jesus in the NT is written as either a convenient chump or foil for his wisdom - they are all either amazed by what he says or stalk away twirling their moustaches screeching about how they'll get him next time.  That is what you get in religious tracts.  A monkey could think of a valid retort for some of the stuff Jesus said to the Pharisees (but a monkey wouldn't because monkeys know those guys were even worse than Christians).

everyone is a chump/chimp compared to christ. it isn't his fault

@phubans: did you just accuse someone of being a 4chan faggot

i like drum. he and i and paul eres are having a high level atheism debate. i think we've almost reached some place good

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

Our empathic abilities aren't fully developed until we come out of puberty. Small children are especially incompetent when it comes to being nice.

But yes, I'm talking about instincts that we've gotten from evolution. Like not hurting our children and relatives. I can't remember any specific studies, but I think it has been established that those feeling spill over to bigger groups that to your closest family.

But it doesn't really matter if we get those feelings from biology or culture (I think it's quite a bit of both). As the situation is now, we have those feelings and they motivate us to create ethics.

even so, why base ethics on feelings in the first place -- you said earlier that ethics should be based on reason and on empathy/the will to do good -- but why not *just* reason? why do we need to take this extra will to do good into consideration. why not treat ethics like a science?

as an analogy, we can say that a lot of people read horoscopes. a lot of people have a feeling of prognostication and destiny, and in luck, in lucky numbers and lucky days, in the idea that your birth sign controls your personality. does that mean we should base astronomy and psychology on those feelings?

basically i don't see why ethics can't come purely out of science rather than appealing to instincts or what people feel towards other people or what people feel is good or bad. people have instincts about what food tastes good and what food doesn't taste good too, but you don't base the science of nutrition on those instincts.

[im9today]

Our empathic abilities aren't fully developed until we come out of puberty. Small children are especially incompetent when it comes to being nice.

But yes, I'm talking about instincts that we've gotten from evolution. Like not hurting our children and relatives. I can't remember any specific studies, but I think it has been established that those feeling spill over to bigger groups that to your closest family.

But it doesn't really matter if we get those feelings from biology or culture (I think it's quite a bit of both). As the situation is now, we have those feelings and they motivate us to create ethics.

even so, why base ethics on feelings in the first place -- you said earlier that ethics should be based on reason and on empathy/the will to do good -- but why not *just* reason? why do we need to take this extra will to do good into consideration. why not treat ethics like a science?

as an analogy, we can say that a lot of people read horoscopes. a lot of people have a feeling of prognostication and destiny, and in lucky, in lucky numbers and lucky days, in the idea that your birth sign controls your personality. does that mean we should base astronomy and psychology on those feelings?

basically i don't see why ethics can't come purely out of science rather than appealing to instincts or what people feel towards other people or what people feel is good or bad. people have instincts about what food tastes good and what food doesn't taste good too, but you don't base the science of nutrition on those instincts.

because you can never make the leap from is to ought with just facts. head over to the nearest community college and take a philosophy 101 class.

after you are secure in your faith i mean. those "professors" will try to swindle all the christ out of you

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

a science of ethics would not be about what people ought to do in general, it'd be about what people ought to do to achieve specific ends that they want. that's something that can be studied. what makes people the most happy (among alternatives) could also be studied. which actions lead to which results; effective and ineffective methods, and so on.

for instance, if honesty really is the best policy, that could be proven scientifically: study honest and dishonest people, record what they are honest and dishonest about, and see what those correlate with (success, happiness, and other variables). the same could be done for a lot of other moral issues -- adultery, chastity, politeness, and so on.

[im9today]

a science of ethics would not be about what people ought to do in general, it'd be about what people ought to do to achieve specific ends that they want. that's something that can be studied. what makes people the most happy (among alternatives) could also be studied. which actions lead to which results; effective and ineffective methods, and so on.

for instance, if honesty really is the best policy, that could be proven scientifically: study honest and dishonest people, record what they are honest and dishonest about, and see what those correlate with (success, happiness, and other variables). the same could be done for a lot of other moral issues -- adultery, chastity, politeness, and so on.

without god there can be no ethics. good luck.

you >
jesus > 

[Drum]

Our empathic abilities aren't fully developed until we come out of puberty. Small children are especially incompetent when it comes to being nice.

But yes, I'm talking about instincts that we've gotten from evolution. Like not hurting our children and relatives. I can't remember any specific studies, but I think it has been established that those feeling spill over to bigger groups that to your closest family.

But it doesn't really matter if we get those feelings from biology or culture (I think it's quite a bit of both). As the situation is now, we have those feelings and they motivate us to create ethics.

even so, why base ethics on feelings in the first place -- you said earlier that ethics should be based on reason and on empathy/the will to do good -- but why not *just* reason? why do we need to take this extra will to do good into consideration. why not treat ethics like a science?

as an analogy, we can say that a lot of people read horoscopes. a lot of people have a feeling of prognostication and destiny, and in luck, in lucky numbers and lucky days, in the idea that your birth sign controls your personality. does that mean we should base astronomy and psychology on those feelings?

basically i don't see why ethics can't come purely out of science rather than appealing to instincts or what people feel towards other people or what people feel is good or bad. people have instincts about what food tastes good and what food doesn't taste good too, but you don't base the science of nutrition on those instincts.

It can't come out of science because science is a branch of philosophy that deals with natural phenomena and explaining how they are.  It can't tell us how they ought to be - though they can advise us (see: environmentalism etc.).  Logic can though, and naturally you gotta know the facts of a case before you go stomping around in your big floppy Principles boots, and I don't think Dacke is disagreeing with that.  Empathy is an important tool to have in your belt tho, it wouldn't be logical to discard it or any potentially relevant details.  It's also a handy shortcut to have in a pinch, like rights.

[im9today]

It's also a handy shortcut to have in a pinch, like rights.

truth is just a game to you...

the devil is causing earthquakes and kid cancers while you guys try to find good strategies. shaking my head.

[Drum]

a science of ethics would not be about what people ought to do in general, it'd be about what people ought to do to achieve specific ends that they want. that's something that can be studied. what makes people the most happy (among alternatives) could also be studied. which actions lead to which results; effective and ineffective methods, and so on.

for instance, if honesty really is the best policy, that could be proven scientifically: study honest and dishonest people, record what they are honest and dishonest about, and see what those correlate with (success, happiness, and other variables). the same could be done for a lot of other moral issues -- adultery, chastity, politeness, and so on.

no such thing as scientifically measuring success
if by happiness you mean pleasure then that is hedonistic utilitarianism which commits the same naturalistic fallacy i mentioned before
if you are using happiness in an aristotelian sense then

you can never collect the 'facts' about something being good. there is no empirical goodness value

a "science of ethics" is nonsensical

This is why I traded in 'good' for 'best'.  Good is a nonsense word, unless you are using a (usually unspoken or assumed) framework by which to judge it by (a good boat is one that floats and can be steered, a good rod is one that catches a lot of fish, honesty is the best policy - but it's just a policy).  If you use 'best' you are cooking with gas - you may not know what that is (you may not ever know), but it automatically invites comparison and you can start logically comparing different arguments and ideas and results to determine which really is the better one.  It doesn't have to be within a framework - in fact it is best if it isn't.

[im9today]

a science of ethics would not be about what people ought to do in general, it'd be about what people ought to do to achieve specific ends that they want. that's something that can be studied. what makes people the most happy (among alternatives) could also be studied. which actions lead to which results; effective and ineffective methods, and so on.

for instance, if honesty really is the best policy, that could be proven scientifically: study honest and dishonest people, record what they are honest and dishonest about, and see what those correlate with (success, happiness, and other variables). the same could be done for a lot of other moral issues -- adultery, chastity, politeness, and so on.

no such thing as scientifically measuring success
if by happiness you mean pleasure then that is hedonistic utilitarianism which commits the same naturalistic fallacy i mentioned before
if you are using happiness in an aristotelian sense then

you can never collect the 'facts' about something being good. there is no empirical goodness value

a "science of ethics" is nonsensical

This is why I traded in 'good' for 'best'.  Good is a nonsense word, unless you are using a (usually unspoken or assumed) framework by which to judge it by (a good boat is one that floats and can be steered, a good rod is one that catches a lot of fish, honesty is the best policy - but it's just a policy).  If you use 'best' you are cooking with gas - you may not know what that is (you may not ever know), but it automatically invites comparison and you can start logically comparing different arguments and ideas and results to determine which really is the better one.  It doesn't have to be within a framework - in fact it is best if it isn't.

good is whatever god wants it to be. wow, that was easy.

[im9today]

"best" didnt get you anywhere. what is the "best" knife like?

at some point you will have to make a normative claim and as soon as you do jesus wins again

[Drum]

It's also a handy shortcut to have in a pinch, like rights.

truth is just a game to you...

I don't understand this.  I am a big truth fan.  Please explain!

a science of ethics would not be about what people ought to do in general, it'd be about what people ought to do to achieve specific ends that they want. that's something that can be studied. what makes people the most happy (among alternatives) could also be studied. which actions lead to which results; effective and ineffective methods, and so on.

for instance, if honesty really is the best policy, that could be proven scientifically: study honest and dishonest people, record what they are honest and dishonest about, and see what those correlate with (success, happiness, and other variables). the same could be done for a lot of other moral issues -- adultery, chastity, politeness, and so on.

no such thing as scientifically measuring success
if by happiness you mean pleasure then that is hedonistic utilitarianism which commits the same naturalistic fallacy i mentioned before
if you are using happiness in an aristotelian sense then

you can never collect the 'facts' about something being good. there is no empirical goodness value

a "science of ethics" is nonsensical

This is why I traded in 'good' for 'best'.  Good is a nonsense word, unless you are using a (usually unspoken or assumed) framework by which to judge it by (a good boat is one that floats and can be steered, a good rod is one that catches a lot of fish, honesty is the best policy - but it's just a policy).  If you use 'best' you are cooking with gas - you may not know what that is (you may not ever know), but it automatically invites comparison and you can start logically comparing different arguments and ideas and results to determine which really is the better one.  It doesn't have to be within a framework - in fact it is best if it isn't.

good is whatever god wants it to be. wow, that was easy.

That's holding god to a low standard.  I would have thought he was better than that - it's not impressive to be perfect when perfect is whatever you decide it is.

[im9today]

god isnt here to impress you. you're here to worship him and frankly you arent doing a very good job of it right now.

[Drum]

"best" didnt get you anywhere. what is the "best" knife like?

You mean the best possible or the best available?  I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but that is not a problem for me - all I know is that there has to be a best possible knife, logically, or at least a multitude of excellent knives that can't all be perfect for every task because excellence at some tasks might impede on excellence of others.
But if I had to guess it would be a knife that shoots poisonous lasers that only hurt evil people.

god isnt here to impress you. you're here to worship him and frankly you arent doing a very good job of it right now.

Why would I worship god if he didn't impress me?  What a disgusting idea.  God doesn't impress you?  Or is the only thing about him that impresses you his awesome power, now that you have junked his wisdom and law as mere trivialities?  I doubt god is impressed with your current line of reasoning  

[William Broom]

a science of ethics would not be about what people ought to do in general, it'd be about what people ought to do to achieve specific ends that they want. that's something that can be studied. what makes people the most happy (among alternatives) could also be studied. which actions lead to which results; effective and ineffective methods, and so on.

for instance, if honesty really is the best policy, that could be proven scientifically: study honest and dishonest people, record what they are honest and dishonest about, and see what those correlate with (success, happiness, and other variables). the same could be done for a lot of other moral issues -- adultery, chastity, politeness, and so on.

I don't think that's really what most people mean by ethics. An ethical proposition isn't something like "Acting honestly will ultimately, on average, benefit you". That's just a statement about the world. An ethical claim would be "You should act honestly regardless of whether it benefits you". (Or, equally, "You should act honestly only when it does benefit you" - the point being that the statement hinges on 'should' instead of 'is'.)

[im9today]

i was thinking about a knife for cooking. you have a pretty twisted mind. probably all those sick animes leaking in.
and you purposefully ignored my point. you can list all the things you think the "best" knife needs and no where in that list will you find "ought to use for cutting"

moving on to your second "point"
you are still thinking in extremely egocentric terms. you worship god because it is his command and his commands are what you should (see how i get to actually use that word with some actual meaning? the power of christ.) do

if you dont like it you should learn to because jesus doesnt lose

[im9today]

you didnt put the option for people to change their votes. i think you should because now i have made some posts.

[Drum]

i was thinking about a knife for cooking. you have a pretty twisted mind. probably all those sick animes leaking in.
and you purposefully ignored my point. you can list all the things you think the "best" knife needs and no where in that list will you find "ought to use for cutting"

Sounds like you missed or ignored my point.  I am talking about what is best, period, with no arbitrary qualifiers.  If you add a qualifier like 'what is the best knife?' all you are going to get is a bunch of talk about knives.
So don't talk about knives if you don't want to talk about knives.
There is only one logical answer to questions like 'how should we be?' or 'what should we do?'  That is: whatever is best.  That is what I call ethics.  If you think ethics is something else, whatever you think it is is necessarily worse.  But I don't think you do think that.  I think you think God is best, right?  I bet you think he is the best thing possible.  What do you think is best for you to do?  Worshipping god?  Spreading his word?  Something like that?  Don't waste my time with this sophist/pharisee bullshit

moving on to your second "point"
you are still thinking in extremely egocentric terms. you worship god because it is his command and his commands are what you should (see how i get to actually use that word with some actual meaning? the power of christ.) do

if you dont like it you should learn to because jesus doesnt lose

How am I egocentric?  Surely it is better to worship god for the right reasons?  Surely it is better to worship the god that is superior to all the other gods?  If you think god is neither better or worse than anything else, and you just worship him because you're a moral degenerate who doesn't believe in right or wrong, maybe you should reconsider and make peace with Jesus or go to hell.

[im9today]

Sounds like you missed or ignored my point.  I am talking about what is best, period, with no arbitrary qualifiers.  If you add a qualifier like 'what is the best knife?' all you are going to get is a bunch of talk about knives.
So don't talk about knives if you don't want to talk about knives.
There is only one logical answer to questions like 'how should we be?' or 'what should we do?'  That is: whatever is best.  That is what I call ethics.  If you think ethics is something else, whatever you think it is is necessarily worse.  But I don't think you do think that.

that doesnt answer anything at all. you still have to find what is "best" and you cant do that with any fact based analysis. total gibberish.


ETHICS FOR DUMMIES

ATHEIST WORLD:
  what should i do with my life?

  do what's best.

  what is that?

  *silence, crickets chirping*

WITH JESUS:
  what should i do with my life?

  do what's written in this book.

  ok! *goes to heaven*

[Drum]

Sounds like you missed or ignored my point.  I am talking about what is best, period, with no arbitrary qualifiers.  If you add a qualifier like 'what is the best knife?' all you are going to get is a bunch of talk about knives.
So don't talk about knives if you don't want to talk about knives.
There is only one logical answer to questions like 'how should we be?' or 'what should we do?'  That is: whatever is best.  That is what I call ethics.  If you think ethics is something else, whatever you think it is is necessarily worse.  But I don't think you do think that.

that doesnt answer anything at all. you still have to find what is "best" and you cant do that with any fact based analysis. total gibberish.

You don't have to find what is best - in fact I think it is extremely unlikely or improbable that you will - but that is what you should be looking for.
If you don't think anything is better or worse than anything else, you are a nihlist or a moral solipsist and you can fuck off.

[im9today]

Sounds like you missed or ignored my point.  I am talking about what is best, period, with no arbitrary qualifiers.  If you add a qualifier like 'what is the best knife?' all you are going to get is a bunch of talk about knives.
So don't talk about knives if you don't want to talk about knives.
There is only one logical answer to questions like 'how should we be?' or 'what should we do?'  That is: whatever is best.  That is what I call ethics.  If you think ethics is something else, whatever you think it is is necessarily worse.  But I don't think you do think that.

that doesnt answer anything at all. you still have to find what is "best" and you cant do that with any fact based analysis. total gibberish.

You don't have to find what is best - in fact I think it is extremely unlikely or improbable that you will - but that is what you should be looking for.
If you don't think anything is better or worse than anything else, you are a nihlist or a moral solipsist and you can fuck off.

so i "should" be looking for what is best

sure sounds like an ethical claim

and of course i think things are better and worse. god is perfectly good and all of his commands should be obeyed. the devil is completely evil. this isn't hard.