Originally posted by dobey: And my point was it doesn't exist, therefore it cannot pass. We do not measure time, we created a measurement, which we call time, that is specifically related to only us. What we call time has no universal value. It is not measured like distances. The measurement of a kilometer is exactly the same, regardless of where in the universe you are. However, the measurement of 1 day, is not. There is absolutely zero evidence of a universal property of time.
I cannot follow your logic in this. You are focusing on a word, a measurement, which I agree we invent inorder to define and measure. I am focusing on facts, such as.. everything ages.
Originally posted by dobey: It's very well agreed in the scientific community that the big bang did in fact happened. ..
Yes but the big bang is defined very simply and without detail. Those details can be filled in many ways. Here is what the big bang theory says:
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state"
Originally posted by dobey: How is a dog that's adapted to live in an environment where it's predecessor wasn't, "more limited" exactly? There are no perfect entities that can survive in any condition, know all things, etc… However, to imply something is more limited and less sophisticated than its predecessor, is just wrong. The DNA strands have more branches, thus there are more opportunities for its development (iow, it's less limited, not more), and it is more sophisticated, because there are more possible mutations in the DNA.
I'm not claiming to know all about it. Some related data from wiki about what I’m thinking about.
“Darwinian evolution and its elaboration in the light of subsequent advances in biological research, have shown that adaptation through natural selection comes about when particular heritable attributes in a population happen to give a better chance of successful reproduction in the reigning environment than rival attributes do. By the same process less advantageous attributes are less "successful"; they decrease in frequency or are lost completely. Since Darwin's time it has been shown how these changes in the frequencies of attributes occur according to the mechanisms of genetics and the laws of inheritance originally investigated by Gregor Mendel. Combined with Darwin's original insights, genetic advances led to what has variously been called the modern evolutionary synthesis[3] or neo-Darwinism. In these terms evolutionary adaptation may occur most obviously through the natural selection of particular alleles. Such alleles may be long established, or they may be new mutations. Selection also might arise from more complex epigenetic or other chromosomal changes, but the fundamental requirement is that any adaptive effect must be heritable.[4]
From a biological viewpoint, … if species evolve it is not a reaction to necessity, but rather that the population contains variations with traits that favour their natural selection.
Lankester discussed the idea of devolution in his book Degeneration: A Chapter in Darwinism (1880). He was a critic of progressive evolution, pointing out that higher forms existed in the past which have since degenerated into simpler forms.
To Hyatt the devolution was predetermined by internal factors which organisms can neither control or reverse. This idea of all evolutionary branches eventually running out of energy and degenerating into extinction was a pessimistic view of evolution and was unpopular amongst many scientists of the time.
"[For example], …options are forever closed, and future possibilities must unfold within the limits of inherited design. A 2009 study on the evolution of protein structure proposed a new mechanism for Dollo's law. It examined a hormone receptor that had evolved from an ancestral protein that was able to bind two hormones to a new protein that was specific for a single hormone. This change was produced by two amino acid substitutions, which prevent binding of the second hormone. However, several other changes subsequently occurred, which were selectively neutral as they did not affect hormone binding. When the authors tried to revert the protein back to its ancestral state by mutating the two "binding residues", they found the other changes had destabilised the ancestral state of the protein. They concluded that in order for this protein to evolve in reverse and regain its ability to bind two hormones, several independent neutral mutations would have to occur purely by chance with no selection pressure. As this is extremely unlikely, it may explain why evolution tends to run in one direction” - “mutations” I have a hard time accepting the notion that mutations regularly occurred and regularly resulted in a positive outcome for an individual subject, and that they were also then inheritable.
but religion is seldom better then the law as to morals but use to justify far too much evil
So when the law is used to justify evil (I'll cite a U.S. law/exec order illustrating this: the internment of Japanese citizens during WW2), does that make it ok? Or is it only "not-ok" when someone misuses religion as the motive for such acts?
quote
all morals are based in the current situation and need to serve the needs of the people
So if the populous consists of 51% wolves and 49% sheep deciding what to eat for dinner, and the wolves win and want to eat the sheep, this obviously serves the needs of the majority of people, right? And if 51% of the population agree that should be the moral and right thing to do as it serves the needs of the majority of people, does that make it right and just?
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 09-21-2015).]
Good points. I would like to know how the law, (if not based on anything higher) can even recognize "evil".
I think we can all agree that Stalin wasn't religious nor did he use religion as the basis for making laws or decisions he made while he was in power. Many sources suggest he was, in fact, an atheist. I'm not going to debate that here.
That having been said, undoubtedly Stalin believed in himself and used his power in government to make or use laws that were ultimately responsible for more deaths of innocent civilians than the Nazis were.
The only guiding principle he had was himself. He may not of thought of the actions he was taking as being evil - especially if he didn't believe in a higher power that was right and just. He is a great example of the fallacy of man's belief in himself.
Having morals and a strong moral foundation requires a moral compass. A moral compass only works if it can point to something (point to good and away from evil). If you believe in nothing, then you have no basis for good or evil, it's all the same shade of grey depending on the observer's views and situation. If you believe in nothing, what you think is good today could be judged to be evil by others tomorrow. And what possible justification do you have for saying your way is right to others if you have no moral foundation from which to base it on and prove it exists to others? Why couldn't they just make up any reason they want to justify their position and cancel out yours, especially if you're in the minority?
Originally posted by 2.5: I cannot follow your logic in this. You are focusing on a word, a measurement, which I agree we invent inorder to define and measure. I am focusing on facts, such as.. everything ages.
But aging is not necessarily related to our ideals of time. Rather, our ideals of time follow aging. Humans don't age because of time. Humans age because the telomeres in our chromosomes break down, and our bodies cannot go on rebuilding when cells die off.
But I thought we were talking about morality, not mortality. They are very different things, and the debate about time is unrelated to the former.
Originally posted by 2.5: “mutations” I have a hard time accepting the notion that mutations regularly occurred and regularly resulted in a positive outcome for an individual subject, and that they were also then inheritable.
Mutation regularly occurs, and mutations are not always beneficial to a species. It takes many generations for successful mutations to be retained. With modern science, we regularly treat any life as the most precious thing, and actively preserve mutations that are otherwise detrimental, in humans.
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: So if the populous consists of 51% wolves and 49% sheep deciding what to eat for dinner, and the wolves win and want to eat the sheep, this obviously serves the needs of the majority of people, right? And if 51% of the population agree that should be the moral and right thing to do as it serves the needs of the majority of people, does that make it right and just?
If there was clear evidence that 100% of the population would be killed tomorrow, but killing 50% of the population today would prevent it, what would be the moral solution? Kill half the population to save the entire species, or let the entire species die off tomorrow, to avoid killing half of them today?
But aging is not necessarily related to our ideals of time. Rather, our ideals of time follow aging. Humans don't age because of time. Humans age because the telomeres in our chromosomes break down, and our bodies cannot go on rebuilding when cells die off.
But I thought we were talking about morality, not mortality. They are very different things, and the debate about time is unrelated to the former.
True it is off topic. I dont just mean humans aging, plants growing, reproducing and dying, stars going supernova, etc. "Time" marches on, whatever we want to call it, and whether the sun goes out or not.
If there was clear evidence that 100% of the population would be killed tomorrow, but killing 50% of the population today would prevent it, what would be the moral solution? Kill half the population to save the entire species, or let the entire species die off tomorrow, to avoid killing half of them today?
Or the seemingly clear evidence could be wrong.
Makes me think,,, what if one of those aborted babies over these generations was the one who was to solve the energy crisis, or to cure alzheimers?
Originally posted by 2.5: Or the seemingly clear evidence could be wrong.
Makes me think,,, what if one of those aborted babies over these generations was the one who was to solve the energy crisis, or to cure alzheimers?
I did not use the word seemingly at all. I said "clear evidence." You are initiating an assumption that the evidence may not be clear. It's an invalid assumption.
Living a life of "what if?" is not living at all. For every "what if?" you can think of where a baby that was aborted may have solved world peace, cured all disease, or whatever else, there's also the chance that baby could be the harbinger of the apocalypse. And thinking "what if?" doesn't stop priests from molesting children, or all the other problems that exist in the world today. What if instead of hoping for some savior to solve all our problems, we actually worked on solving them, ourselves?
Originally posted by dobey: I did not use the word seemingly at all. I said "clear evidence." You are initiating an assumption that the evidence may not be clear. It's an invalid assumption.
You would then be claiming a certainty, I doubt that is possible in such a situation. That is my opinion.
Your next paragraph when put into the situation given stands out.
quote
Originally posted by dobey:
Living a life of "what if?" is not living at all. For every "what if?" you can think of where a baby that was aborted may have solved world peace, cured all disease, or whatever else, there's also the chance that baby could be the harbinger of the apocalypse. .... What if instead of hoping for some savior to solve all our problems, we actually worked on solving them, ourselves?
Living a life at all would be taken from 50% of the population based on something someone, or some precent of people thought was clear, but may not be. Also what about the next part, who chooses who to kill? Who does the killing? The aborted disease curer/causer.. What can I say I'm not as pessimistic as I may seem? I would rather not kill the babies based on fear of one being communicably sick in the future and hope for the best. Actually worked on solving our problems...by killing 50% of the population....?
The reasoning just doesnt fit many scenarios. IMO
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-21-2015).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Living a life at all would be taken from 50% of the population based on something someone, or some precent of people thought was clear, but may not be. Also what about the next part, who chooses who to kill? Who does the killing? The aborted disease curer/causer.. What can I say I'm not as pessimistic as I may seem? I would rather not kill the babies based on fear of one being communicably sick in the future and hope for the best. Actually worked on solving our problems...by killing 50% of the population....?
The reasoning just doesnt fit many scenarios. IMO
It was a hypothetical. The point is you can't take one scenario and apply the reasoning to all other scenarios. They are all different and require different reasoning.
You're again twisting the words in the hypothetical situation, to attempt raising of doubt. As I stated, there is no doubt. 100% of the people know that if an immediate action is not taken to eliminate 50% of the population, then 100% of them will instead die. There is clear and present evidence that it will happen. You then claim that life will be taken from 50% in order to save the other 50%, but are ignoring that 100% of them would be dead the following day, if 50% of them are not killed. Your taking what I said and trying to insert doubt, is exactly the problem with the idea of trying to specify morality as some exact thing. It isn't.
You're again twisting the words in the hypothetical situation, to attempt raising of doubt. As I stated, there is no doubt. 100% of the people know that if an immediate action is not taken to eliminate 50% of the population, then 100% of them will instead die. There is clear and present evidence that it will happen. You then claim that life will be taken from 50% in order to save the other 50%, but are ignoring that 100% of them would be dead the following day, if 50% of them are not killed. Your taking what I said and trying to insert doubt, is exactly the problem with the idea of trying to specify morality as some exact thing. It isn't.
I still say it isnt possible. But if it were... consider the two next questions I had...and does the foundation of the US regarding inalienable rights lose all meaning?
I mean regardless, your scenario would mean world war but still.
Originally posted by 2.5: I still say it isnt possible. But if it were... consider the two next questions I had...and does the foundation of the US regarding inalienable rights lose all meaning?
I mean regardless, your scenario would mean world war but still.
I think the foundation of the US regarding inalienable rights lost all meaning, before it was written. How can you have inalienable human rights, when you're alienating other humans and not given them those same rights? We can't even agree on those rights still today, over 200 years later.
Again, you're attempting to insert doubt into the hypothetical scenario that I put forth, by asserting it would mean world war. You're claiming that there can be no certainty in my scenario, and then turning around and being certain that it would result in some other war. Besides, a world war would take far longer than 24 hours, so 100% of the population would then be dead in the following day, as a result of the scenario.
I think the foundation of the US regarding inalienable rights lost all meaning, before it was written. How can you have inalienable human rights, when you're alienating other humans and not given them those same rights? We can't even agree on those rights still today, over 200 years later.
Again, you're attempting to insert doubt into the hypothetical scenario that I put forth, by asserting it would mean world war. You're claiming that there can be no certainty in my scenario, and then turning around and being certain that it would result in some other war. Besides, a world war would take far longer than 24 hours, so 100% of the population would then be dead in the following day, as a result of the scenario.
Depends, nuke war? We all bomb eachother, eveyone dies in fallout? Which 50% will volunteer to die? Is forcing them moral? But then the question is irrelevant if one believes there are no morals and is no right and wrong. I'm just getting specific, getting specific ruins some hypothesis.
Originally posted by 2.5: Depends, nuke war? We all bomb eachother, eveyone dies in fallout? Which 50% will volunteer to die? Is forcing them moral? But then the question is irrelevant if one believes there are no morals and is no right and wrong. I'm just getting specific, getting specific ruins some hypothesis.
You're not getting specific. You're trying to alter the scenario. I never mentioned nuclear war. I didn't specify that anyone would be forced to be killed, or anything about volunteering. It's a thought experiment. Part of the thought experiment isn't trying to determine the circumstances around the experiment itself, or trying to figure out how or why the stated situation is happening. The parameters of the thought experiment were specific. I'll restate the parameters a little differently, so that maybe it'll help you see the point I'm making with it, a little better.
There is an arbitrary planet somewhere in the universe. 100% of the population of this planet knows with absolute certainty they will all die in 24 hours. 100% of the population of this planet knows that total extinction will be averted, if 50% of the population is eliminated within that 24 hours.
The thought experiment is meant to help create a definition of "what is morality?" There are two possible outcomes: 50% of the people are sacrificed to save the other 50%, or nothing is done and 100% of the population dies. The question to you is, which one of these two acts of the third party which you're observing, is the moral act? Is it moral to do nothing and ensure the death of everyone? Is it moral do sacrifice 50% of the population, so that the remaining 50% will continue living after that 24 hours is up?
How or Why the situation exists are irrelevant asides to the morality question.
You're not getting specific. You're trying to alter the scenario. I never mentioned nuclear war. I didn't specify that anyone would be forced to be killed, or anything about volunteering. It's a thought experiment. Part of the thought experiment isn't trying to determine the circumstances around the experiment itself, or trying to figure out how or why the stated situation is happening. The parameters of the thought experiment were specific. I'll restate the parameters a little differently, so that maybe it'll help you see the point I'm making with it, a little better.
There is an arbitrary planet somewhere in the universe. 100% of the population of this planet knows with absolute certainty they will all die in 24 hours. 100% of the population of this planet knows that total extinction will be averted, if 50% of the population is eliminated within that 24 hours.
The thought experiment is meant to help create a definition of "what is morality?" There are two possible outcomes: 50% of the people are sacrificed to save the other 50%, or nothing is done and 100% of the population dies. The question to you is, which one of these two acts of the third party which you're observing, is the moral act? Is it moral to do nothing and ensure the death of everyone? Is it moral do sacrifice 50% of the population, so that the remaining 50% will continue living after that 24 hours is up?
How or Why the situation exists are irrelevant asides to the morality question.
Irrelevant. Thought experiments without bringing reality to it are kind of limited in their usefullness wouldnt you say?
Originally posted by 2.5: Irrelevant. Thought experiments without bringing reality to it are kind of limited in their usefullness wouldnt you say?
No.
I'd say you're trying to ignore the issue by trying to find some way to rationalize with your own ideals of what morality is. If you can't specify which of the two actions in that scenario is moral and which is not, then you cannot rightfully say that any action is moral or immoral.
Rather, your reluctance to describe which of the two actions is moral, and which is not, proves the point that I was making. You cannot define what is moral and what is not.
Originally posted by 2.5: I would say there are far too many scenarios in what you are describing as one.
If you would like a simple personal answer I would murder no one.
You are trying to create alternate scenarios in your own mind, different from the scenario I described, where you could rationalize killing noone, and having everyone survive. That was not the scenario. There is only the once scenario I described, with two choices.
I was not looking for any specific answer. Thought experiments are to make you think. The point was that morality is not something which can be defined. It is not black and white. You cannot say one thing is moral, and another thing isn't.
I'd say you're trying to ignore the issue by trying to find some way to rationalize with your own ideals of what morality is. If you can't specify which of the two actions in that scenario is moral and which is not, then you cannot rightfully say that any action is moral or immoral.
Rather, your reluctance to describe which of the two actions is moral, and which is not, proves the point that I was making. You cannot define what is moral and what is not.
No, for me murder is immoral. But I'm not just having this conversation for me.
True but like I was trying to say, my side point, is when you take the thought expiriment out of its vacuum there are real consequences to the choices people make. Just my thoughts.
Originally posted by 2.5: True but like I was trying to say, my side point, is when you take the thought expiriment out of its vacuum there are real consequences to the choices people make. Just my thoughts.
Yes, and there are real consequences to the two outcomes in the thought experiment as well. One consequence is that everyone dies. Another is that only half the people die.
Simply because the concepts of the thought experiment do not directly and immediately effect you, does not mean the concept is not realistic. Rather in fact, we are faced with a very similar situation in real life today, but instead of confronting the problems we're creating for ourselves, humanity would rather ignore the problems and fight over meaningless bullshit.
While it's true that the "christian world" hasn't done a very good job living up to its teachings, some Muslims have been very zealous in following theirs....
Originally posted by dobey: we are faced with a very similar situation in real life today, but instead of confronting the problems we're creating for ourselves, humanity would rather ignore the problems and fight over meaningless bullshit.
Yeah humans take the path of least resistsance, if they can forget a problem they will try to. When we dont have to go out and hunt or grow our food each day, we find somethign else to complain about.
Originally posted by fierosound: While it's true that the "christian world" hasn't done a very good job living up to its teachings, some Muslims have been very zealous in following theirs....
That was uncalled for, and purely disrespectful. If you want to go bash Islam, go make another thread. Please keep it out of here. Some of us were actually trying to have a civil discussion about morality. There's no need for you to come in and trash the thread with this garbage.
Originally posted by 2.5: I understand that. Could you go into more detail about how that applies to this scenario?
Murder is something that one does to someone else.
You are making an assumption that the only way 50% of the population in the given scenario could be sacrificed so that the other 50% may live, would be if the surviving 50% were to murder the other 50%. There are thousands of ways such a sacrifice could be made. You're concentrating on the physical aspects of how or why such a scenario would exist, rather than the moral aspect of the scenario. If there is some way to define morality, then there must be some way to say which of the two results is or is not moral, regardless of how the one outcome would be executed. It seems like you're trying to find a way to navigate the scenario to find an alternate outcome that is amicable to your own beliefs. Don't feel bad if you can't. The scenario is a paradox, exactly to concentrate on the How do you define morality? aspect, to show that morality is indeed not a black and white thing.
That was uncalled for, and purely disrespectful. If you want to go bash Islam, go make another thread. Please keep it out of here. Some of us were actually trying to have a civil discussion about morality. There's no need for you to come in and trash the thread with this garbage.
All I see here is an argument between you and everyone else...
Morality has historically been based on religious teachings, therefore it's right in line with the topic of this thread... Therefore, murder is immoral (or not) - depending on what your religion teaches...
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 09-22-2015).]
Originally posted by fierosound: All I see here is an argument between you and everyone else...
Morality has historically been based on religious teachings, therefore it's right in line with the topic of this thread... Therefore, murder is immoral (or not) - depending on what your religion teaches...
All you want to see is an argument, because what you want, is to argue and bash other religions. 2.5 and I are actually having a civil discussion.
Religion in the context of morality might be in line with the topic of the thread, but outright bashing other religions, is not. Posting images of Christian/military propaganda does not further any discussion.
2.5 and I are actually having a civil discussion..
The topic is “What is Morality Based On?”
Prior to 2.5 getting in, you talked about “big bang”, global warming, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy… The when 2.5 came in it shifted to the nature of time, man’s effect on the planet, Darwin and Evolution, and currently “discussing” this…
quote
Originally posted by dobey:
If there was clear evidence that 100% of the population would be killed tomorrow, but killing 50% of the population today would prevent it, what would be the moral solution? Kill half the population to save the entire species, or let the entire species die off tomorrow, to avoid killing half of them today?
I saw the topic “What is Morality Based On?” which has spawned this hypothetical argument between you and 2.5 on the morality of killing…
MORALITY in most cultures was based on religious teachings that included “laws” to guide the people – the topic of this thread - whatever the religion: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islamism etc.
European civilization was predominantly based on Christianity/Judaism and that system of morals and laws has spread to North America and around the world. In most countries and cultures today you “do not kill” anyone for ANY reason. The exception was as punishment for KILLING another person. Even that has been dispensed with in most of the "civilized world" because capital punishment has been viewed as immoral by our sentiments of today.
Of course, some cultures still promote death as punishment for many “crimes” including embarrassing the family. Obviously their "morality" is based a different background of teachings and laws than most peoples.
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 09-22-2015).]
Murder is something that one does to someone else.
You are making an assumption that the only way 50% of the population in the given scenario could be sacrificed so that the other 50% may live, would be if the surviving 50% were to murder the other 50%. There are thousands of ways such a sacrifice could be made. You're concentrating on the physical aspects of how or why such a scenario would exist, rather than the moral aspect of the scenario. If there is some way to define morality, then there must be some way to say which of the two results is or is not moral, regardless of how the one outcome would be executed. It seems like you're trying to find a way to navigate the scenario to find an alternate outcome that is amicable to your own beliefs. Don't feel bad if you can't.
I think this scenario is not as simple as it would like to be. I think that in itself makes a point. Results arent the only thing that can be moral.
If what we are doing is judging morality one would need to know the methods in the scenario.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: ... The scenario is a paradox, exactly to concentrate on the How do you define morality? aspect, to show that morality is indeed not a black and white thing.
So the scenario has an agenda, and the people who came up with it think it will show that morality is not a "black and white thing", so there is a "wrong" answer to the scenario, and my questions lead to the wrong answer, so they cannot be acceptable within the rules it seems.
Originally posted by 2.5: So the scenario has an agenda, and the people who came up with it think it will show that morality is not a "black and white thing", so there is a "wrong" answer to the scenario, and my questions lead to the wrong answer, so they cannot be acceptable within the rules it seems.
There is no wrong answer. The problem is that rather than evaluating the morality of the one scenario, you're trying to dive deep into each individual that comprises the scenario, and trying to judge individual morality, in order to affect the overall morality.
Try to concentrate on the two options of the scenario itself, and not the individuals within the scenario.
