Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and uploads. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
ok go; let's talk about morals
Topic Started: Apr 29 2008, 02:28 AM (453 Views)
calvinist

um...
What does eating dogfood have to do with morals?? The taste of dog food is subjective. If one person hates dog food, another may like it. So yes, in that way (being subjective), that metaphor is correct.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
d0nk3y
Member Avatar
current status: lurking more
calvinist
Apr 30 2008, 03:28 AM
um...
What does eating dogfood have to do with morals?? The taste of dog food is subjective. If one person hates dog food, another may like it. So yes, in that way (being subjective), that metaphor is correct.
Because years of evolution have not given us the chemical sensors that cause us to like dog food... because it was not exactly a staple food, we dislike it..

Similarly, years of evolution have (in my opinion) given the idea that <being homosexual is bad>, ... because it was not exactly good for reproduction.

We can say that the dog food tastes bad, but we wouldn't say it is evil or a sin to eat it. And we should only say that being a homosexual is bad because you cannot reproduce.
And then the subjectivity comes into play when dogs (or the occasional person) likes dog food. We don't call dogs stupid for eating it... We acknowledge that they are different for some reason, but not a good or bad one.


The metaphor is a little different with views against death and things, but the point is that there are multiple levels of "good/bad" you can discuss (and a divine one, in my view, does not exist).
Edited by d0nk3y, Apr 30 2008, 03:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
calvinist

no. eating dog food is subjective. I like it (not really). You don't. Just because of that, i shouldn't be considered weird. You really need to learn the common language. Or maybe you just haven't learned why Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense. Everyone should be able to understand what I'm talking about. But I am definitely confused by what you are trying to get across and you are definitely trying to confuse me. Again. Common language please.
Edited by calvinist, Apr 30 2008, 11:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jesusfreak574

Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins has tried to argue that homosexuality is not immoral because it somehow serves to aid reproduction. Figure that one out. It just shows the kind of mess you can get into when you make moral subjective.

It is good and fine to say that morals evolved, but when could they have evolved? They must have been present at the inception of a species, or the species would have died out much too quickly for anything to evolve. If there is anything we know from recorded history, it is that evolution must move slowly. And who would be doing this evolving to develop morals? The person who eats well because he steals food, or the person who starves because his food is stolen? It doesn't serve one, and the other dies too quickly anyway.

I find that the only explanation for morals is to say that they are a universal expression of a divine being. God, if you will. They are an expression of his character. For example, if God does not lie, then it is bad for us to lie. If God is faithful in his relationships, then it is bad for us to be unfaithful in ours (ie adultery). If God does not murder, then it is bad for us to murder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
calvinist

you say that God doesn't murder....or does he?? you don't see anything wrong with the following: Noah's Ark (killing EVERYTHING), the city of Sodom, and Passover? What is the bible saying? It's okay for god to destroy his creations, but it's not okay for his creations to destroy his other creations?? Are we the only animals who have souls?? And if so, why wouldn't god want to give that to his other creations?? Why just us?? I think that my cat knows what love is. I think that i had to earn my cat's love. Why wouldn't god want ALL of his creations in heaven and not just humans (which, im sorry, but a tad boring)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Goda
Topic Starter
to God, the end of mortal life is of little importance. He set it going, and he knows what happens to us. He gave us mortal life to learn our way back to him, and if he knows we are going downhill with no chance of getting out of a rut, then the mortal life is pointless, and if it is hindering his plan for righteous children, then he can end the mortal life of wicked. Also there is the subject of covenants...if they are not kept, they need to be punished. Canaan was the promised land, but inhabited by wicked people, so thus the Israelites got it.

Animals have souls. All things were created in the spiritual before the physical.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
d0nk3y
Member Avatar
current status: lurking more
Dawkins
 
.........This brings me to my own favourite, the 'sneaky male' theory.

In harem-based species, like some seals and deer, a minority of males monopolises the females, leaving a surplus of bachelors. Those supernumerary males that have no hope of displacing a harem-master sometimes specialise in an alternative, 'best of a bad job,' strategy: sneaking quick copulations with females while his back is turned. Genes promoting sneaking skills are passed on, in parallel with genes promoting the dominant male skill of bashing up other males.

You can tell harem species by their sexual dimorphism - males larger than females. Humans are less dimorphic than elephant seals (a dominant bull typically outweighs 14 females) but dimorphic enough to suggest at least some legacy of harem-based history. Clandestine matings with females may have provided the only route for surplus bachelors to pass on their genes. Their skills may have included lulling harem masters into a false sense of security, and now here is the point. A genuine preference for other males might well carry more conviction than a simulated indifference to females. By analogy, women frequently remark that they feel 'secure' in the company of homosexual men, and monarchs have staffed their harems with eunuchs. Incidentally, experts doubt the widely-promulgated story that the Ottoman Sultan Ibrahim was so jealous of a rumoured liaison between a eunuch and an unidentified odalisque that he drowned his entire 280-strong harem in the Bosporus. In any case homosexual men are not eunuchs and they can fertilise women. According to the sneaky male theory, their homosexual orientation gained them privileged access to women and a minority stream of homosexual genes prospered.


I can see and agree with the points he makes. But he does not claim absolute knowledge over the subject.


Mathematician John Nash, in a recent speech to Nobel prize laureates, proposed that evolution may have a place for mental diseases such as schizophrenia because, although they inhibit reproduction, some of the world's most beautiful minds have schizophrenic, and you could probably say the majority of "great minds" have had some sort of mental condition. I believe it is very possible that homosexuality could be the same thing. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people . I've got no "science" to back it up, really, but it's kind of clear that the people weren't told by the devil to behave that way.




Regarding the evolution of morals, or as I'd prefer to say, the evolution of the perception of morals, start at the beginning... Bacteria would not have died off from stealing from eachother. Neither would plants or protists. There are plenty of cannibalistic animals... but humans (or rather, our closer ancestors) lived in small tribes. They learned that cooperation was necessary for their survival because they were not fitted with wings or sharp claws. When the tribe gets together and pushes the thief off the cliff, his genes aren't going to last much longer.



edit because Adam likes to post while I'm typing: if animals have souls, why is it permissible to kill and eat them?




if further explanation is wanted, let me know..
Edited by d0nk3y, May 2 2008, 01:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Goda
Topic Starter
because eating animals is natural carn/omnivorous activity, but killing other humans is detrimental to the species. with religion added, God created animals for us to interact with, including eating. he lets us kill animals for our own good. He does not want us to kill each other because He gave us our lives in order to learn. If animals were here for the same reason we are, then we killing them for food would be bad...

of course killing them for sport, and killing them to extinction is just stupid and bad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
d0nk3y
Member Avatar
current status: lurking more
Goda
May 2 2008, 01:24 AM
because eating animals is natural carn/omnivorous activity, but killing other humans is detrimental to the species. with religion added, God created animals for us to interact with, including eating. he lets us kill animals for our own good. He does not want us to kill each other because He gave us our lives in order to learn. If animals were here for the same reason we are, then we killing them for food would be bad...

of course killing them for sport, and killing them to extinction is just stupid and bad
What if they are mean animals? :(
Just curious.. do you think that the animals will go to heaven (or face similar judgment)? And also, why does god care more about us than animals? :( Where do plants fit in?




I can, contrarily, offer up the suggestion that "because eating animals is natural carn/omnivorous activity, but killing other humans is detrimental to the species", it is a common 'moral' not to kill others. But because we must survive, we do kill some other animals/plants.
And because plenty of people find the sport of hunting entertaining, they hunt. (I myself am not one of them, but I don't see it as immoral or evil.)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Goda
Topic Starter
animals(and plants) lack intelligence, and can't know or decide to do things bad. its just like a child being innocent until they understand.

most hunters eat the animals they kill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philosophy & Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply