God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

[Lao Tse]

I don't know what animals think. I'm guessing. But Cypress has made the claim that they are caring for fellow pack members out a sense of reciprocity which is a HOPED for outcome that requires the ability to hypothesize a future event that may or may not happen. I have seen scant little evidence that have that ability but I could be wrong.

Are you thinking that wolves take care of hurt wolves because they think that in some future scenario they might need help and are thus rendering it to their fellow wolf in the hopes that they are going be cared for should they fall?

but really we're talking about humans.

what I keep fucking telling you is humans can take natural ingroup patterns and extend them because of rationality, and the observable benefits of cooperation.

why are you fixated?

why can;t you move forward?

 

[Cypress]

But it does. It gets to the heart of why they do it. That's the essence of their morality. I claim it is not a choice for them. They do it without even processing the thoughts. I think humans are likewise prone to doing the good action automatically but we add an extra dimension onto it because we can actually explicitly choose to NOT do it. And that's what I think moral philosophy is. A way to explain our actions to ourselves and forestall our possible denial of that impulse.



Credit or no, you and I both agree there is a BENEFIT to doing those good things. You've explicitly stated as much and I wholly agree.

My cat chooses to bring me a dead bird, and doesn't choose to bring one to the neighbor or to a stranger. The cat is seemingly aware of a reciprocal relationship.

There aren't any examples of Oskar Schindler or Mother Teresa in the animal world. That kind of selfless sacrifice on behalf of complete strangers, and the moral awareness of the distinction between absolute right and wrong seems to be unique to humans.

 

[Daylight63]

My cat chooses to bring me a dead bird, and doesn't choose to bring one to the neighbor or to a stranger. The cat is seemingly aware of a reciprocal relationship.

But that wasn't the question. What about the wolf who care about the other wolf. Surely the wolf is not thinking "I'll take care of this guy so that in some eventual future I might also need help and by modeling this behavior I am sure to be provided this when I am in need."

As for the cat, I don't think cats are necessarily wired the same as dogs since cats are usually lone predators.

That kind of selfless sacrifice on behalf of complete strangers, and the moral awareness of the distinction between absolute right and wrong seems to be unique to humans.

I think I've already exhausted my explanation which I think generally comports with yours. We both agree that humans and other animals that survive in packs have an in-built instinctual drive to care for others and that it follows Darwin and provides a benefit to the animals. I am merely noting that humans have an added component that makes the decision more "willful" and more liable to being set aside in self-interest because we have the ability to hypothesize alternative futures based on our actions. And that is where the moral philosophers come in.

There's really nothing "new" to the concept of caring for others, animals do it, we are an animal and we also do it. We just add some flourishes on the edges.

But they're basically the same.

This is already too long and I apologize. I don't get the feeling you are actually disagreeing with me but somehow you are. I'm not really sure what the disagreement is about since we both agree on the larger issue.

 

[Daylight63]

but really we're talking about humans.

Humans are animals. They are just on a "spectrum of conscious thought" but we are all of a common thing.

what I keep fucking telling you is humans can take natural ingroup patterns and extend them because of rationality, and the observable benefits of cooperation.

Which is almost exactly what I've been saying over and over on this thread.

why are you fixated?

why can;t you move forward?

I am actually attempting to address the points Cypress raises. If this bothers you then please just sit this one out. Especially since it does not appear that you are following it particularly well.

 

[Lao Tse]

Humans are animals. They are just on a "spectrum of conscious thought" but we are all of a common thing.



Which is almost exactly what I've been saying over and over on this thread.



I am actually attempting to address the points Cypress raises. If this bothers you then please just sit this one out. Especially since it does not appear that you are following it particularly well.

he has no points that have not been dealt with.

he refuses to acknowleged humans can extend the basic policy of morality from ingroup to outgroup.

he keeps trying to refute human morality by denying it exists in the animal kingdom, which proves nothing anyway.

and you humor his basic stupidity.

actually your function is to just fuck up good threads with your incessant mindless yammering.

 

[Lao Tse]

Humans are animals. They are just on a "spectrum of conscious thought" but we are all of a common thing.



Which is almost exactly what I've been saying over and over on this thread.



I am actually attempting to address the points Cypress raises. If this bothers you then please just sit this one out. Especially since it does not appear that you are following it particularly well.

I whipping both of your idiot asses.

 

[IBDaMann]

Wolves may not understand the English language, but they are perfectly capable of understanding mutually beneficial advantage.

Yet another omniscience fallacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Humans are animals.

I can buy this.

They are just on a "spectrum of conscious thought"

This is basically gibberish.

but we are all of a common thing.

Not likely.

 

[Cypress]

humans can extend the basic policy of morality from ingroup to outgroup.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me that humans uniquely in the animal world have the capacity to universalize an objective moral agency and to perceive absolutue right and wrong, independent of any conventional understanding of the natural laws of survival and evolution

 

[Hume]

you should love him because of his superior policies.

He is a hate filled fascist. As are you.

 

[Hume]

That's why I have been saying this kind of human ethos is not found among animals or within the natural laws of survival. It's not rational in a materialistic and biological sense.

It just doesn't make sense in a strictly Darwinian natural order.

Only you think ethics has to be based on science.

 

[Lao Tse]

Thanks for finally agreeing with me that humans uniquely in the animal world have the capacity to universalize an objective moral agency and to perceive absolutue right and wrong, independent of any conventional understanding of the natural laws of survival and evolution

buy animals often do similar things at least with their ingroup.

so we have praticed much of this since we've been mammals nurturing live young.

 

[Cypress]

animals often do similar things at least with their ingroup.

That is what I already said fifteen billion times before in this thread. Altruism based on reciprocity and mutual advantage is a well understood Darwinian evolutionary adaptation in nature.

What is unique among humans is the psychological potential to universalize moral truths into objective absolute concepts of right and wrong

 

[Cypress]

Only you think ethics has to be based on science

No, it's atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins who claim human morals come strictly from the laws of biology and natural selection.

I am the one deconstructing that line of thinking.

 

[Lao Tse]

That is what I already said fifteen billion times before in this thread. Altruism based on reciprocity and mutual advantage is a well understood Darwinian evolutionary adaptation in nature.

What is unique among humans is the psychological potential to universalize moral truths into objective absolute concepts of right and wrong

right.

and it doesn't take divine intrervention to do that.

just observing our own historical ingroup behaviors, how two groups meld overtime, perhaps over a period of warring followed by peace and then getting the inspiration to skip the nasty part.

and people honored their mother and father before Moses. duh.

but I have also seen cross species acts of altruism in the animal kingdom.

but I'm not gonna fight with you over it. it's in many animal behavior videos. and cute animal videos too.

 

[Lao Tse]

No, it's atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins who claim human morals come strictly from the laws of biology and natural selection.

I am the one deconstructing that line of thinking.

it's a yes and, not an either or.

 

[Hume]

No, it's atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins who claim human morals come strictly from the laws of biology and natural selection.

I am the one deconstructing that line of thinking.

dawkinszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Daylight63]

No, it's atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins who claim human morals come strictly from the laws of biology and natural selection.

I am the one deconstructing that line of thinking.

I thought you agreed that moral actions like care of one's fallen cohort provided a benefit to the animal's survival. That would seem to be morality coming (at least in part) from biology and natural selection

 

[Daylight63]

That is what I already said fifteen billion times before in this thread. Altruism based on reciprocity and mutual advantage is a well understood Darwinian evolutionary adaptation in nature.

What is unique among humans is the psychological potential to universalize moral truths into objective absolute concepts of right and wrong

I agree with you very much on this. However I think what little bit we disagree on is that I see this as one of "degree" and you see it as a huge change. But other than that I think we generally agree.

 

[Hume]

I agree with you very much on this. However I think what little bit we disagree on is that I see this as one of "degree" and you see it as a huge change. But other than that I think we generally agree.

Ethics is not about God. Something Christians cannot understand.