Morality Defined

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't know what animals are feelilng or thinking. They may also feel some form of regret. Your opinion in based on unproven notions of anthropomorhpic exceptionalism.

We have studied animals in the wild for many years, and they don't feel remorse or regret for their actions. They do not possess the conscious awareness of humans in that regard, not even in the more advanced primates, like gorillas and chimpanzees. This is very much proven.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

We have studied animals in the wild for many years, and they don't feel remorse or regret for their actions. They do not possess the conscious awareness of humans in that regard, not even in the more advanced primates, like gorillas and chimpanzees. This is very much proven.

You don't know that. There is no way to tell. Sorry.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A distinction without a difference. Thanks for an empty constuction of pointlessness.

Various tribes had various degrees of spirituality? Are you sure? You're really out on a limb on that one.

How am I out on a limb? Our anthropological evidence shows this is true. Some ancient tribes practiced very strong spiritual beliefs with many various rituals, while others didn't. Some believe this may be why Neanderthal became extinct, the lack of any connection to spirituality, therefore the inability to develop trust and faith and enable morality. They were shunned as uncivilized creatures, much like the Atheist scum of today, and eventually became extinct because of it. It begs the question, why didn't they "evolve" morality like the rest of us?

Distinction with a very huge difference, you are just too ignorant to see it. Spiritual belief is not Religion. Religion is a form (or byproduct) of Spiritual belief. Before organized religions were formed, man still worshiped. So, it is incorrect to say I believe religion fostered morality, indeed, it was spirituality which fostered morality. Through time, this moral code became the basis for organized religions.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't know that. There is no way to tell. Sorry.

I am sorry, in the thousands of case studies of animals in the wild, there doesn't appear to be any signs or indications of remorse or regret for their actions. How's that?

The bottom line is, animals do not practice human morality. They have no sense of moral consequence when it comes to their behaviors, they can't rationalize between moral "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong." Some advanced primates have shown the ability to learn human concepts of "right and wrong" but this is a learned behavior, and not something they exhibit naturally.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I am sorry, in the thousands of case studies of animals in the wild, there doesn't appear to be any signs or indications of remorse or regret for their actions. How's that?

Feelings are not always visible on the surface. Plus, i have seen animals appearing to mourn and fret about dead young or dead mates.

The bottom line is, animals do not practice human morality. They have no sense of moral consequence when it comes to their behaviors, they can't rationalize between moral "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong." Some advanced primates have shown the ability to learn human concepts of "right and wrong" but this is a learned behavior, and not something they exhibit naturally.

I never said animals practice human morality. I said morality is a mode of behaving which facilitates cooperative and mutually advantageous behaviors. that still remains true despite your idiotic distractions and stupidity.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

What is moral for man is often not what is best for man or what enables man to best survive.

See. Dixie is actually a human hating nihilist. His pro life stance is just to throw us off. he actually hates people.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Feelings are not always visible on the surface. Plus, i have seen animals appearing to mourn and fret about dead young or dead mates.

You are right, feelings are not always visible on the surface, that is why it is important to observe behaviors, rituals and customs. Through this observation, you can develop enlightened understanding and have faith and trust in what you observed.

You have seen animals mourn about the loss of life they have become accustomed to. This is not what I stated. They have no guilt in their actions, and no sense of consequence for 'immoral' behaviors. Many animals can show love and compassion, and humans largely identify with these attributes, but they can't rationalize 'right and wrong' within the confines of their intelligence.

Let me give you an example... Let's use Gorilla's, since they are a close primate 'relative' of humans. If you decided to go to the Zoo one day and visit the various species of amazing life forms, and somehow managed to fall into the Gorilla habitat... the Mother Gorilla might see you and feel some form of 'maternal compassion' for your distress and come cradle you in her arms, but when the Father Gorilla sees you, he may rip you away and proceed to tear you limb from limb, because you are a male and he smells your scent. You represent a threat, and any "morality" issue goes out the window along with any perceived "compassion" for your condition. The Father Gorilla doesn't care that you are a smaller and weaker enemy, or understand the consequences of killing you, the pain (or in your case, joy) your family would feel over the loss, he doesn't think about any of that, it never enters his mind. After he has killed you, he will feel no guilt for it whatsoever.

There is a fundamental difference in the morality practiced by humans, and the 'moral codes' we see in certain wild animal societies. Humans have the ability to reason, the understanding of 'right and wrong' however that has been defined in their specific cultural social structure.

I never said animals practice human morality. I said morality is a mode of behaving which facilitates cooperative and mutually advantageous behaviors. that still remains true despite your idiotic distractions and stupidity.

And we've been through all of this already. That is a very loose and vague definition of Human Morality. It denies any act of selflessness as being moral. I think there are many moral and selfless acts, which do not include any mutual benefit or advantage for the person involved in the selfless act. People have died defending their Morality, and there was no benefit to them in doing so. Many people are persecuted and condemned for their Morality, it is not beneficial or advantageous to them.

You can keep repeating the same idiocy over and over, it isn't going to suddenly be right, and you aren't suddenly going to win the Nobel Prize.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You are right, feelings are not always visible on the surface, that is why it is important to observe behaviors, rituals and customs. Through this observation, you can develop enlightened understanding and have faith and trust in what you observed.

^^ is Empty, irrelevant, meaningless. I was talking about us being unable to know what animals are feeling or thinking. you just decided to shotgun that whole part of the disscussion with a blast of nothingness. Get a life.

You have seen animals mourn about the loss of life they have become accustomed to. This is not what I stated. They have no guilt in their actions, and no sense of consequence for 'immoral' behaviors. Many animals can show love and compassion, and humans largely identify with these attributes, but they can't rationalize 'right and wrong' within the confines of their intelligence.

So now animals can love and show compassion, but they cannot feel regret. Your worldview seems to be composed of a series of idiotic fallback positions.

Let me give you an example... Let's use Gorilla's, since they are a close primate 'relative' of humans. If you decided to go to the Zoo one day and visit the various species of amazing life forms, and somehow managed to fall into the Gorilla habitat... the Mother Gorilla might see you and feel some form of 'maternal compassion' for your distress and come cradle you in her arms, but when the Father Gorilla sees you, he may rip you away and proceed to tear you limb from limb, because you are a male and he smells your scent. You represent a threat, and any "morality" issue goes out the window along with any perceived "compassion" for your condition. The Father Gorilla doesn't care that you are a smaller and weaker enemy, or understand the consequences of killing you, the pain (or in your case, joy) your family would feel over the loss, he doesn't think about any of that, it never enters his mind. After he has killed you, he will feel no guilt for it whatsoever.

There is a fundamental difference in the morality practiced by humans, and the 'moral codes' we see in certain wild animal societies. Humans have the ability to reason, the understanding of 'right and wrong' however that has been defined in their specific cultural social structure.

Nope. There's No FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, despite the touching ape story.

And we've been through all of this already. That is a very loose and vague definition of Human Morality. It denies any act of selflessness as being moral.

No it doesn't.

I think there are many moral and selfless acts, which do not include any mutual benefit or advantage for the person involved in the selfless act. People have died defending their Morality, and there was no benefit to them in doing so. Many people are persecuted and condemned for their Morality, it is not beneficial or advantageous to them.

Morality is beneficial, dying for it is an irrelevant side issue.

You can keep repeating the same idiocy over and over, it isn't going to suddenly be right, and you aren't suddenly going to win the Nobel Prize.

And you can keep repeating your stupidity. You won't be right. I am right, however. You are wrong. You are bent over.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

^^ is Empty, irrelevant, meaningless. I was talking about us being unable to know what animals are feeling or thinking. you just decided to shotgun that whole part of the disscussion with a blast of nothingness. Get a life.

No, actually that was your fist being taken behind you back and rammed firmly up your own ass. It must have come as quite a surprise to you! I can tell, because you didn't catch how you just disproved your own theory that mankind observed nature and developed morality. We are unable to tell how animals feel, so how could we have possibly known moral behavior would have been reciprocal?

So now animals can love and show compassion, but they cannot feel regret. Your worldview seems to be composed of a series of idiotic fallback positions.

That is correct. In some instances, animals can exhibit signs of human emotion, but they lack the ability to rationalize and understand morals of right and wrong, or the consequences of their actions. They do not experience guilt.

Nope. There's No FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, despite the touching ape story.

Yep, there is a fundamental difference, and only an ape would disagree....maybe a Neanderthal.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Morality is beneficial, dying for it is an irrelevant side issue.

Morality certainly wasn't very beneficial to the one who died.

And you can keep repeating your stupidity. You won't be right. I am right, however. You are wrong. You are bent over.

LOL... Again, you are the one bent over, with your own fist in your ass, you really look quite funny. And I can repeat my stupidity as many times as you repeat yours, I've got all the time in the world. If you care to address something I have said, or introduce some other aspect to the debate, feel free to do so at any time, I am waiting. Perhaps, if you can get your fist out of your ass, you can form some coherent logic or point to your argument, and try it again a different way? I doubt it will do you much good to argue this same stupidity anymore, as it will only result in me having to put your fist up your ass against your will again. Although.... it was funny to see that puzzled look on your face, like... wtf is happening here?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No, actually that was your fist being taken behind you back and rammed firmly up your own ass. It must have come as quite a surprise to you! I can tell, because you didn't catch how you just disproved your own theory that mankind observed nature and developed morality. We are unable to tell how animals feel, so how could we have possibly known moral behavior would have been reciprocal?

It's not my theory that man OBSERVED nature and got morality from that. That's just your mischaracterization of my position, which I've corrected many times. Given that, you're a damn fool with no point.

That is correct. In some instances, animals can exhibit signs of human emotion, but they lack the ability to rationalize and understand morals of right and wrong, or the consequences of their actions. They do not experience guilt.

You don't know that. Sorry.

Yep, there is a fundamental difference, and only an ape would disagree....maybe a Neanderthal.

And what is that fundamental difference? Enlighten us.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Morality certainly wasn't very beneficial to the one who died.

Nothing always works out one hunded percent.

LOL... Again, you are the one bent over, with your own fist in your ass, you really look quite funny. And I can repeat my stupidity as many times as you repeat yours, I've got all the time in the world. If you care to address something I have said, or introduce some other aspect to the debate, feel free to do so at any time, I am waiting. Perhaps, if you can get your fist out of your ass, you can form some coherent logic or point to your argument, and try it again a different way? I doubt it will do you much good to argue this same stupidity anymore, as it will only result in me having to put your fist up your ass against your will again. Although.... it was funny to see that puzzled look on your face, like... wtf is happening here?

I've refuted your every ignorant utterance effectively. Basically your arguments now rely on mischaracterizations, invalid syllogisms, and changing the subject.

 

[a11n]

Yes it does

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's not my theory that man OBSERVED nature and got morality from that. That's just your mischaracterization of my position, which I've corrected many times. Given that, you're a damn fool with no point.

You keep repeating the same inaccurate definition of Morality, and I have simply shown you where your premise fails. Your argument is not supported by logic or fact, and any reasonable mind can see that clearly. My only point has been to introduce logic and reason, and find understanding. Nothing foolish or pointless about that.

You don't know that. Sorry.

You don't have to be sorry for not being able to post a worthy rebuttal, you've been doing it throughout this thread, and on a regular basis here daily. We understand, really we do, no need to apologize for it.

And what is that fundamental difference? Enlighten us.

I already have, twice, as a matter of fact, scroll back up and read what I posted instead of dissecting it into little snippets you can smart off at. That's your biggest problem, you are so full of hate and venom, you are unable to be rational and reasonable. You are so full of rage you can't read and comprehend anymore. It's more important for you to 'tear down' and attack, than to be objective and rational. Whatever happened in your life, must have been very hard on you emotionally.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Nothing always works out one hunded percent.

For the person who died defending their Morality, I would say they received ZERO percent benefit from that behavior. Disregarding those who died standing on principles of Morality, what about all of the people who do moral things everyday, and never expect a thing in return? How have you determined they are realizing some mutual benefit or cooperation from others? It seems to me, they are making personal sacrifice to uphold their moral convictions, and there's really nothing in it for them, other than the satisfaction of knowing they did something morally right.

I've refuted your every ignorant utterance effectively. Basically your arguments now rely on mischaracterizations, invalid syllogisms, and changing the subject.

LOL... You can get that fist out of your ass if you have some vasaline or KY jelly. It seems to be making you a little grumpy and irritable. Your "refutations" amount to "no it's not!" LMFAO! ....Riiiiiiiight.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You keep repeating the same inaccurate definition of Morality, and I have simply shown you where your premise fails.

No you haven't.

Your argument is not supported by logic or fact, and any reasonable mind can see that clearly.

It is. That much is clear.

My only point has been to introduce logic and reason, and find understanding. Nothing foolish or pointless about that.

You're the one who said mankind learned morality from obseriving rituals. Let's not forget that saliency.

You don't have to be sorry for not being able to post a worthy rebuttal, you've been doing it throughout this thread, and on a regular basis here daily. We understand, really we do, no need to apologize for it.

I have bettered you continually in all aspects on this thread. that's the truth of it, yea, and verily.

I already have, twice, as a matter of fact, scroll back up and read what I posted instead of dissecting it into little snippets you can smart off at. That's your biggest problem, you are so full of hate and venom, you are unable to be rational and reasonable.

Yet you're the one who said man learned morality from observing rituals. That's pretty stupid.

You are so full of rage you can't read and comprehend anymore. It's more important for you to 'tear down' and attack, than to be objective and rational. Whatever happened in your life, must have been very hard on you emotionally.

I'm in harmony with the universe, and merely pulling others up to my level. You're dog squeeze.

Yes it does.

Yes, it doesn't.

For the person who died defending their Morality, I would say they received ZERO percent benefit from that behavior. Disregarding those who died standing on principles of Morality, what about all of the people who do moral things everyday, and never expect a thing in return? How have you determined they are realizing some mutual benefit or cooperation from others? It seems to me, they are making personal sacrifice to uphold their moral convictions, and there's really nothing in it for them, other than the satisfaction of knowing they did something morally right.

They're participating in an ongoing general social contract between humans in a cooperative group. Nothing religious or spiritual about it. Yet the intergalactic strings of love and hate do connect and confine us, according to our choices and loyalties.

LOL... You can get that fist out of your ass if you have some vasaline or KY jelly. It seems to be making you a little grumpy and irritable. Your "refutations" amount to "no it's not!" LMFAO! ....Riiiiiiiight.

You're fisted again, sally.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"They're participating in an ongoing general social contract between humans in a cooperative group. Nothing religious or spiritual about it. Yet the intergalactic strings of love and hate do connect and confine us, according to our choices and loyalties."

People who are being killed and persecuted for their moral beliefs, are not participating in any kind of social contract I am aware of, if they are, I am sure they would like to re-negotiate the terms. "Intergalactic strings of love and hate?" ....Fuck if that doesn't sound like a "higher power" to me! There may be hope for your salvation yet!

"Yet you're the one who said man learned morality from observing rituals. That's pretty stupid."

Yes I did, and I also said neither of us can "prove" our theories. Man didn't "learn" morality from anyone, because there was no one to teach it to him. Mankind developed morality through experience and wisdom, which was enabled by trust and faith in (most likely) spiritual rituals and customs observed. It makes logical sense, because human morality is certainly not an attribute of natural selection.

The remainder of your post is full of "no it's not" ..."you're a moron" ..."fisted again!" comments, and I don't have time to respond to your idiotic juvenile bullshit anymore. If you want to have a grown up conversation, you have to first act like a grown up, and not an 8-year old.

 

[a11n]

dixie wins the debate

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

People who are being killed and persecuted for their moral beliefs, are not participating in any kind of social contract I am aware of, if they are, I am sure they would like to re-negotiate the terms. "Intergalactic strings of love and hate?" ....Fuck if that doesn't sound like a "higher power" to me! There may be hope for your salvation yet!

Now you're taking things out of the context of the discussion. My social contract comment was related to those simply go about their day being generally nice, affable, and cooperative. THAT is a participation in a general social contract.

Yes I did, and I also said neither of us can "prove" our theories. Man didn't "learn" morality from anyone, because there was no one to teach it to him. Mankind developed morality through experience and wisdom, which was enabled by trust and faith in (most likely) spiritual rituals and customs observed. It makes logical sense, because human morality is certainly not an attribute of natural selection.

We learned through trial and error.


Trust and faith in a ritual? What does it mean to have faith in a ritual? Sounds stupid.

You're fisted again.

The remainder of your post is full of "no it's not" ..."you're a moron" ..."fisted again!" comments, and I don't have time to respond to your idiotic juvenile bullshit anymore. If you want to have a grown up conversation, you have to first act like a grown up, and not an 8-year old.

SO you're done then? Good. You've lost. It's funny how your time has run out just as you got you ass kicked again. Cheers, mate. Don't eat yellow snow.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

dixie wins the debate

Nope. That's observation is made in error, obviously.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Trust and faith in a ritual? What does it mean to have faith in a ritual? Sounds stupid.

Yes, it does sound stupid, which is why you should really focus on trying to read to the end of the sentence. The last word I used was "observed" which means "faith in the rituals observed" not the ritual itself. As human tribes/clans observed the rituals of each other, they began to develop trust and faith in the observed behaviors associated with these rituals and beliefs, which then enabled them to justify, reason and rationalize moral codes of social behavior between these tribes/clans. Your 'mutual benefit of the cooperative behavior' came as a result and made this a desirable attribute in humanity, and was probably the very thing that doomed Neanderthal. Evidence shows they were not Spiritualistic, and had no moral social codes, thus were unable to assimilate with the homo sapien species.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Yes, it does sound stupid, which is why you should really focus on trying to read to the end of the sentence. The last word I used was "observed" which means "faith in the rituals observed" not the ritual itself.

Ok. Faith in rituals OBSERVED makes no sense either.

As human tribes/clans observed the rituals of each other, they began to develop trust and faith in the observed behaviors associated with these rituals and beliefs, which then enabled them to justify, reason and rationalize moral codes of social behavior between these tribes/clans.

This makes no sense.

Your 'mutual benefit of the cooperative behavior' came as a result and made this a desirable attribute in humanity, and was probably the very thing that doomed Neanderthal. Evidence shows they were not Spiritualistic, and had no moral social codes, thus were unable to assimilate with the homo sapien species.

So morality developed BEFORE it was a desirable trait, from faith in ritual OBSERVED? IS that your final nitwit answer?

Which evidence shows neanderthals hand no moral social code?


You're a complete cretin, you realize that, right?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ok. Faith in rituals OBSERVED makes no sense either.

This makes no sense.

As man's ability to reason and rationalize began to develop, he began to contemplate why he was here, and how he was able to conquer primitive fear and control fire, etc. This led to an enlightenment, that something greater must be in play, and he is obviously part of it. This led to Spirituality, and routines or rituals to honor the power which gave him the power. As human population grew, it became common for families or clans to encounter others who were not part of the clan. When this happened, nature would dictate the strongest survived and prevailed and the weakest would die. However, through the observations of like spiritual rituals and beliefs, clans were eventually able to develop bonds with each other over common beliefs and principles associated with their mutual spiritual beliefs, and thus, moral social codes were formed and human morality emerged.

So morality developed BEFORE it was a desirable trait, from faith in ritual OBSERVED? IS that your final nitwit answer?

Not what I said... man, you really do have a problem comprehending things. I'll try to type slower. The premise you presented to explain morality, the mutual benefit and cooperation aspect, made the practice of forming moral social codes attractive and desirable. Before morality is practiced, it can't be "desirable" or "undesirable" because... well... it hasn't happened. Duh.

Which evidence shows neanderthals hand no moral social code?

All of it. From every anthropological finding we have unearthed, we see no evidence Neanderthal either practiced spirituality, or engaged in social moral contract with other humans. They did exist at the same time as Homo-Sapien, and they did become extinct. Most experts believe it was precisely because of their lack of social moral codes and inability to gain compatibility with Homo-Sapiens, which led to their demise.

You're a complete cretin, you realize that, right?

Nope, I had no idea.