moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:53 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:04 pm
"Categorizing"? That's one activity science does, but not nearly all it does, and things that are not scientific involve it, too.

Why are we talking about that?
Because science involves observation and quantification,
Those are different from "categorization." They're three distinct operations. One can observe or quantify without having to categorize, and categorize without quantifying, and observe while doing neither.
Oh no you can't!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 11:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:20 pm But the important point is merely this: how do you show that "intelligence" or any other quality you hope is increasing, is "good," if you are a subjectivist? For then, you have to say it's not objectively good. So subjectivism implies it's only good for those who prefer to think it is, but they may be objectively wrong, for all we can know. :shock:
Intelligence has been defined...
No, no...I know what intelligence IS. What you need to show is that, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
This is a strawman.
I have not equate intelligence with moral sense.
I was using intelligence as an analogy.

What I am saying was,
even with any aspect of relativity, there is progress.
I gave intelligence as an analogy.
I could have given any improvement in human competence and skills.
As such, within relativity, re moral competence, we can have moral progress, e.g. it is a rare [very perverted] to hear of anyone killing another human and eat them at present in contrast to 5000 -500 years ago.

Such abilities can be measured objectively.
Yes, but measurability doesn't prove they are morally valuable qualities. And that they are objectively measurable doesn't make them objectively moral. We can also very precisely measure the number of murders or rapes, or the number of slaves. That won't show that murder, rape or slavery are moral.[/quote]
As I had argued elsewhere, what is objective moral facts are represented by physical neural connections in the brain as moral potentials.

The variation of number of cannibals, murders or rapes, or the number of slaves over the years will indicate the efficient workings of the moral facts, i.e. the moral physical neural connections as moral facts in the brain.

Here is a clue,
Say a person score 10/100 consistently in comparison to another who score 90/100 consistently in say Mathematics.
The difference is represent by the physical state of neural connection and their efficient workings in their respective brains.
This physical state of neural connectivity is a fact, i.e. a fact of mathematical potential and competency in the brain.
Do you deny this fact?
No! you cannot deny this fact.

It is the same with the moral potential within every human being which is represented by the relevant neural connectivity with different degrees of competency for different individuals.
As with the mathematics competency example, this potential of physical neural connectivity is an objective moral fact.

The good thing with a religion like Christianity is, it intuitively recognized these moral mechanisms and incorporate them into their doctrines. Fortunately for Christianity they are right on target with their pacifist maxims which in alignment with the inherent moral potential in the human brain.
It is also the same with Henry's intuition that 'one ought not to enslave another'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:53 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:58 pm

Because science involves observation and quantification,
Those are different from "categorization." They're three distinct operations. One can observe or quantify without having to categorize, and categorize without quantifying, and observe while doing neither.
Oh no you can't!
Sure you can. Why not?

Why can't you count the number of something without subdividing it into categories? That's a routine mathematical operation. Why can't you put things in categories, but not know what their size or number is? Can't I put all the women and children in the lifeboats, while all the men go down with the Titanic, without knowing how many of each I have? Why can't you observe a sunset without wondering what category it's in, or how many other sunsets there have been?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 11:01 am
Intelligence has been defined...
No, no...I know what intelligence IS. What you need to show is that, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
This is a strawman.
You clearly don't even know what one of those is.

No, it's the is-ought question.
What I am saying was,
even with any aspect of relativity, there is progress.
"Progress" implies "going forward" or "improving" in some way. That's a value-laden term (an "ought") and thus needs to be justified.

How do you define what "progress" consists in, and how do you show that you know it's "progress"?
it is a rare [very perverted] to hear of anyone killing another human and eat them at present in contrast to 5000 -500 years ago.
But we killed more people in worse ways in the last century than in all of previous history combined. How do you account for that, if we have "progress" in homicide?

Here's the problem: you simply deny all facts that don't fit your theory. There are, as you have been shown, statistically more slaves today than at any time in history, and in worse circumstances, too. But you try to redefine "slavery" so narrowly as to not have to deal with that fact. Similarly, you say that murders are decreasing, because you only refer to canabalism as "murder"; but the truth is that the number of pure homicides was greatest in the last century.

So long as you aren't even aware of the basic facts, or pretend to be, there's absolutely no reason for anybody to take your claims of "progress" seriously at all.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:28 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:53 am
Those are different from "categorization." They're three distinct operations. One can observe or quantify without having to categorize, and categorize without quantifying, and observe while doing neither.
Oh no you can't!
Sure you can. Why not?

Why can't you count the number of something without subdividing it into categories? That's a routine mathematical operation. Why can't you put things in categories, but not know what their size or number is? Can't I put all the women and children in the lifeboats, while all the men go down with the Titanic, without knowing how many of each I have? Why can't you observe a sunset without wondering what category it's in, or how many other sunsets there have been?
By "categorising" I mean that things are allocated to categories by theories of what sort of things they are. E.g. Canines are mammals. Daisies are flowers(or plants). Respiration is for adding oxygen to the lungs. My coffee is for drinking. My coffee is to keep me awake. Ships are means of transport. Ships are beautiful. Bridges are for spanning rivers and gorges.

You will recognise all these sentences are propositions that categorise subjects by linking a subject and a predicate. To link a subject and a predicate is to hypothise. To verify or rule out whether or not a hypothesis is true, a scientist then seeks empirical evidence or statistical significance and usually both of those.

In short, thinking arises from theories which take the explicit form of propositions.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:28 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:46 am

Oh no you can't!
Sure you can. Why not?

Why can't you count the number of something without subdividing it into categories? That's a routine mathematical operation. Why can't you put things in categories, but not know what their size or number is? Can't I put all the women and children in the lifeboats, while all the men go down with the Titanic, without knowing how many of each I have? Why can't you observe a sunset without wondering what category it's in, or how many other sunsets there have been?
By "categorising" I mean that things are allocated to categories by theories of what sort of things they are.
And it's not the only scientific activity...it's just one among many, as above.

Nor is it the only activity in logic. "Categorical" is only one of the major types of formal syllogism, actually. (see also conditional, dysjunctive, hypothetical...)

Not all premises even have an "is." Some predicate on a "will" or an "or" or an "if".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:30 pm
No, no...I know what intelligence IS. What you need to show is that, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
This is a strawman.
You clearly don't even know what one of those is.
No, it's the is-ought question.
You are the ignorant one.
Morality is never conflated nor equated with intelligence. The main operations of each are in separate parts of the brain. A highly intelligent person can be highly immoral in the case of genius serial killers.

It is absurd to question, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
Rather we should ask, in what moral sense we OUGHT to value pacifism [no killing of another human].

What I am saying was,
even with any aspect of relativity, there is progress.
"Progress" implies "going forward" or "improving" in some way. That's a value-laden term (an "ought") and thus needs to be justified.

How do you define what "progress" consists in, and how do you show that you know it's "progress"?
it is a rare [very perverted] to hear of anyone killing another human and eat them at present in contrast to 5000 -500 years ago.
But we killed more people in worse ways in the last century than in all of previous history combined. How do you account for that, if we have "progress" in homicide?

Here's the problem: you simply deny all facts that don't fit your theory. There are, as you have been shown, statistically more slaves today than at any time in history, and in worse circumstances, too. But you try to redefine "slavery" so narrowly as to not have to deal with that fact. Similarly, you say that murders are decreasing, because you only refer to canabalism as "murder"; but the truth is that the number of pure homicides was greatest in the last century.

So long as you aren't even aware of the basic facts, or pretend to be, there's absolutely no reason for anybody to take your claims of "progress" seriously at all.
Your problem and ignorance is you always conflate and lump up everything into the general perspective and argue therefrom not recognizing there are many perspectives to an issue.

My point is this, using this analogy of say a totally paralyzed person which denote the motor brains for willful conscious deliberate intent is 100% damage.
Doctors and therapists were very optimistic this particular patient can be cured to move on his own.
They apply all sort of knowledge and techniques to attempt to cure the patients so that he can recover to be mobile as soon as possible.
After a few months of treatment, the patient suddenly could move his one of his finger upon request by the doctors.

Surely there is 'improvement' and 'progress' in the patient's motor neural connectivity in this case?
But if you are arguing like you do above, you will deny there is 'improvement' and 'progress' because the patient can ONLY move one fingers [thus not significant] and he is still incapacitated on the whole. You insist there is no improvement nor progress on the basis of the WHOLE.

What is critical is the patient's ability to move one finger only at that time, signify the GENERAL PRINCIPLE that there is potential & hope he can progressively improve and develop connectivity in his motor brain to more finger, whole hand and other part of his body.
In this particular patient case, the doctors [after several months] were able to improve and progress to enabling the patient to move his whole body.
This is a reality and evident within the medical practices.

My point with examples of cannibalism, chattel slavery and the likes [rather than lumping and muddling the issue] is the same like highlighting the 'one finger' improvement and progress as a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, which is going on with the objective moral potential within the brain of individuals.

This general principle is very clear with my analogy re motor neurons and moving one finger.
The problem is the neural mechanisms of the moral potential is not that clear nor easy for the majority to understand and that is why you [being ignorant] are able to resort to the WHOLE to muddle things up.

Note your deception in this case is an insult to your own intelligence reflected below;
IC wrote:But we killed more people in worse ways in the last century than in all of previous history combined. How do you account for that, if we have "progress" in homicide?
This is really bad thinking and a rhetoric out of desperation.
Why do you use 'last century' which include the two World Wars?
But if you compare killings after the last World War to the present, surely you can see there is a reduction in killings, thus an improvement in contrast to the previous 100 years to WW II.

Morality is ultimately link to an existential threat to humanity and the individual[s].
Note the concern for global warming & climate change and the threat to the existence of humanity in the last 30 year or even 20 years.
This is related to the sudden unfoldment of the moral potential related to this particular aspect of the existential threat.
Unfortunately this concern [like the Gospel's pacifism] is merely based on moral intuition without any specific relation to the objective moral facts [neurons in the brain].

So don't continue to insult your own intelligence by ignorantly resorting to lumping everything up to defend your position.

It is Universal Principle that to be effective in solving problems, the necessary technique is to break problems into smaller units first, then later combine them into the whole.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:19 am It is absurd to question, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
You said it yourself: intelligence is not a "moral" quality. And since you believe we're in a universe which is itself not intelligent, nor created by any intelligence, you have to conclude that intelligence is not obviously valuable.
Here's the problem: you simply deny all facts that don't fit your theory. There are, as you have been shown, statistically more slaves today than at any time in history, and in worse circumstances, too. But you try to redefine "slavery" so narrowly as to not have to deal with that fact. Similarly, you say that murders are decreasing, because you only refer to canabalism as "murder"; but the truth is that the number of pure homicides was greatest in the last century.

So long as you aren't even aware of the basic facts, or pretend to be, there's absolutely no reason for anybody to take your claims of "progress" seriously at all.
Your problem and ignorance is you always conflate and lump up everything into the general perspective and argue therefrom not recognizing there are many perspectives to an issue.
That's simply a lot of bluster and nonsense. The sentence above is ad hominem, in the first place, and the "many perspectives" plea is just silly. There are many wrong perspectives, and often only one right one.
Surely there is 'improvement' and 'progress' in the patient's motor neural connectivity in this case?
It's not moral "progress" or "improvement." It's merely mechanical. It's "motor" repair, as you call it. But you continue, it seems, not to have any idea the two aren't related.
IC wrote:But we killed more people in worse ways in the last century than in all of previous history combined. How do you account for that, if we have "progress" in homicide?
Why do you use 'last century' which include the two World Wars?[/quote]
You just answered your own question. What it shows is that wars are not getting better, but worse.
Morality is ultimately link to an existential threat to humanity and the individual[s].
Climate activists think not. As you also mention, many of them argue that it would be good for the planet if a lot of people died. Now, I think they're immoral; but I have good reasons to think that. What would your reasons be?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:19 am It is absurd to question, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
You said it yourself: intelligence is not a "moral" quality. And since you believe we're in a universe which is itself not intelligent, nor created by any intelligence, you have to conclude that intelligence is not obviously valuable.
Here's the problem: you simply deny all facts that don't fit your theory. There are, as you have been shown, statistically more slaves today than at any time in history, and in worse circumstances, too. But you try to redefine "slavery" so narrowly as to not have to deal with that fact. Similarly, you say that murders are decreasing, because you only refer to canabalism as "murder"; but the truth is that the number of pure homicides was greatest in the last century.

So long as you aren't even aware of the basic facts, or pretend to be, there's absolutely no reason for anybody to take your claims of "progress" seriously at all.
Your problem and ignorance is you always conflate and lump up everything into the general perspective and argue therefrom not recognizing there are many perspectives to an issue.
That's simply a lot of bluster and nonsense. The sentence above is ad hominem, in the first place, and the "many perspectives" plea is just silly. There are many wrong perspectives, and often only one right one.
Claiming another is ignorant [not having enough knowledge, understanding, or information about something:] is not ad hominen.
It is a fact that is evident from the content you post.
I have always refer to Kant and Hume of ignorant of certain knowledge but it is not their fault due their time, certain knowledge were not available to them yet.

It is so common sense to understand there are many perspectives and truths as conditioned within a specific framework of knowledge, e.g. Classical Newtonian Physics, Einsteinian, Quantum Mechanics has their respective acceptable objective truth that is conditioned to their respective system of knowledge.

There can never be one truth that is by itself and not conditioned nor qualified to some grounds or system.
Surely there is 'improvement' and 'progress' in the patient's motor neural connectivity in this case?
It's not moral "progress" or "improvement." It's merely mechanical. It's "motor" repair, as you call it. But you continue, it seems, not to have any idea the two aren't related.
That is an ignorant and bankrupt view.

Note in the mental perspective:
improve: develop or increase in mental capacity by education or experience.

How come I have to educate you on vocabulary and meanings.
IC wrote:But we killed more people in worse ways in the last century than in all of previous history combined. How do you account for that, if we have "progress" in homicide?
Why do you use 'last century' which include the two World Wars?
You just answered your own question. What it shows is that wars are not getting better, but worse.
A search from Google indicated the number killed during WWI was 20 million and WWII 40 million.
It is claimed the Islamic Wars killed >100 million.

Now show me evidence the number killed in wars after WWII is more than 20 + 40 millions?
Morality is ultimately link to an existential threat to humanity and the individual[s].
Climate activists think not. As you also mention, many of them argue that it would be good for the planet if a lot of people died. Now, I think they're immoral; but I have good reasons to think that. What would your reasons be?
There you go again sliding to something irrelevant.
I was referring to the concern of global warmings and the threat to humanity. Show me evidence those involve in global warming insist it is good for the planet if a lot of people died.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:37 am
Surely there is 'improvement' and 'progress' in the patient's motor neural connectivity in this case?
It's not moral "progress" or "improvement." It's merely mechanical. It's "motor" repair, as you call it. But you continue, it seems, not to have any idea the two aren't related.
That is an ignorant and bankrupt view.
No, it's just the truth. There's nothing from you showing an "is" to "ought." You simply try to deny the problem, as if if you can't see it, then nobody else can.
Why do you use 'last century' which include the two World Wars?
You just answered your own question. What it shows is that wars are not getting better, but worse.
A search from Google indicated the number killed during WWI was 20 million and WWII 40 million.
It is claimed the Islamic Wars killed >100 million.
Islam has nothing to do with me. However many they did or didn't kill, that's on them.

The war dead in the last century alone, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars, is well over 140 million. About 100 million, minimum were directly caused by Socialist regimes. Socialism, not Islam, is the world's most homicidal creed.

The same source pegs the number of religious war dead at just over 7% of the total, and puts Islam as responsible for half -- 3.5% or so, of the total war dead. The other 3.5% comprises all other religions in history, put together. :shock: That means the killer Buddhists of Myanmar, the homicidal Hindus and Sikhs, the Catholics of the Crusades, the Polytheists and Animists and so on...all of them, make up only 3.5% of the total war dead. And there are other religious groups who have never killed anyone. Period.
I was referring to the concern of global warmings and the threat to humanity.
Climate loonies would point out that global warming is caused by human beings. Their ideas go back to Malthus, actually. But they're as common as anything, nowadays. Here's just one source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... r-children.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:37 am

It's not moral "progress" or "improvement." It's merely mechanical. It's "motor" repair, as you call it. But you continue, it seems, not to have any idea the two aren't related.
That is an ignorant and bankrupt view.
No, it's just the truth. There's nothing from you showing an "is" to "ought." You simply try to deny the problem, as if if you can't see it, then nobody else can.
You are veering off topic.
Our original point was 'regardless of how relative people deal with morality, there is nevertheless progress in morality, albeit intuitively'. Because SOME do not rely on objective moral facts, these SOME [not all] may be vulnerable to go on the evil side instead of the moral side.

For those who are progressing on their moral competence, albeit intuitively, that is represented by actual progress in their morality related neurons. For example, these people would have 'improve' from having an impulse to kill humans to being indifferent to killing another human.

You are weird in this case, this is not about "is" to "ought' nor about any "motor repair."
You just answered your own question. What it shows is that wars are not getting better, but worse.
A search from Google indicated the number killed during WWI was 20 million and WWII 40 million.
It is claimed the Islamic Wars killed >100 million.
Islam has nothing to do with me. However many they did or didn't kill, that's on them.

The war dead in the last century alone, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars, is well over 140 million. About 100 million, minimum were directly caused by Socialist regimes. Socialism, not Islam, is the world's most homicidal creed.

The same source pegs the number of religious war dead at just over 7% of the total, and puts Islam as responsible for half -- 3.5% or so, of the total war dead. The other 3.5% comprises all other religions in history, put together. :shock: That means the killer Buddhists of Myanmar, the homicidal Hindus and Sikhs, the Catholics of the Crusades, the Polytheists and Animists and so on...all of them, make up only 3.5% of the total war dead. And there are other religious groups who have never killed anyone. Period.
Again you are going off topic.
I stated there are improvements in moral consciousness since the last WWII to the present, because there were less people killed in wars after WWII.
You insist in changing the context and keep harping on 'since the last century'.

You have another problem with conflating 'religion per se' with their believers.
The 'Buddhists' of Myanmar or the Catholics of the Crusades killed based on their personal choice and not driven by any inherent doctrine of their religion.
I was referring to the concern of global warmings and the threat to humanity.
Climate loonies would point out that global warming is caused by human beings. Their ideas go back to Malthus, actually. But they're as common as anything, nowadays. Here's just one source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... r-children.
There are many reasons why people are concern with climate change.
Having less babies to a sustainable population [with no threat to the human species] is not a moral issue at all.

My context was with reference to global warming activists who were concern of the massive deaths and threat to the human species due to climate related catastrophe.
In the past, the majority could not give a damn about climate change but the fact that more and more people at present has that increased consciousness and are concern about climate change and its existential threat to humanity is due to their progress in moral competence in this specific aspect.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:37 am That is an ignorant and bankrupt view.
No, it's just the truth. There's nothing from you showing an "is" to "ought." You simply try to deny the problem, as if if you can't see it, then nobody else can.
You are veering off topic.
Nope. Dead on it.
...there is nevertheless progress in morality,...
I've heard what you say. You imagine slavery is diminished, as you also imagine murder is. And so you imagine you are right.

It's all imagination.
I stated there are improvements in moral consciousness since the last WWII to the present
That's 70 years, one generation.

By any account, that's nowhere near long enough for you to say. Evolution is said to take millions or billions of years. Once again, your data are imaginary.
The 'Buddhists' of Myanmar or the Catholics of the Crusades killed based on their personal choice and not driven by any inherent doctrine of their religion.
So you say. It may or may not be. But absent any proof, you're back to imagination.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:37 pm
No, it's just the truth. There's nothing from you showing an "is" to "ought." You simply try to deny the problem, as if if you can't see it, then nobody else can.
You are veering off topic.
Nope. Dead on it.
...there is nevertheless progress in morality,...
I've heard what you say. You imagine slavery is diminished, as you also imagine murder is. And so you imagine you are right.

It's all imagination.
You are merely insulting your own intelligence is trying to insult mine.

Where did I state 'slavery' in the loosest sense has diminished?
I specifically qualified 'chattel-slavery' has diminished since the last 1000 years to the present.

I also did not mention the word 'murder' but the killing of humans by another or other humans which include wars and other means.
I stated there are improvements in moral consciousness since the last WWII to the present
That's 70 years, one generation.

By any account, that's nowhere near long enough for you to say. Evolution is said to take millions or billions of years. Once again, your data are imaginary.
Veering off again.

You insist on comparing figures since the last century, i.e. 100 years which included the numbers killed during WWII.

I specifically mentioned the period after WWII [1939-45] which is nearer to 80 years ago.
But after the WWII there was an increased awareness and deliberate effort that WWII should be repeated. This will involved increasing the moral consciousness and moral related neurons in the brain to achieve the expected results.
The time between WW1 and WWII was about 20 years but it is already appx 80 years and there is no WWIII thus the number of human killed had been reduced drastically due to the efforts taken.

My point is, this reduction on killing of humans is contributed by many factors, but one of the main one is the increase in moral consciousness of humanity [on average] in this respect.
The 'Buddhists' of Myanmar or the Catholics of the Crusades killed based on their personal choice and not driven by any inherent doctrine of their religion.
So you say. It may or may not be. But absent any proof, you're back to imagination.
Proofs?
Show me where in the Gospels or Buddhist Sutras that glaringly command believers to kill non-believers?
Surely as Christian, you are very familiar with what Christ taught and expect of believers?

There are none, thus those Buddhist's and 'Christians' killed based on their own personal decision and not by obeying the commands of Christ or the Buddha.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:17 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:42 am
You are veering off topic.
Nope. Dead on it.
...there is nevertheless progress in morality,...
I've heard what you say. You imagine slavery is diminished, as you also imagine murder is. And so you imagine you are right.

It's all imagination.
You are merely insulting your own intelligence is trying to insult mine.
I don't insult. And I was not trying.

I simply point out what's obviously true. You're relying on imagination, because what you say about slavery and murder is simply, verifiably, factually untrue. There isn't anything else for you to be relying on.

That doesn't make you stupid: just (plausibly) willfully uninterested in reality. It also makes you uninteresting as a discussion partner, because nobody can debate your imagination. You can imagine anything you want.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:49 pmYou can imagine anything you want.
That's pretty much what Steve Jobs did. So did that Zukerberg kid.

Imagination precedes everything man creates, whether it's Bell's first phone call or rote repetition of the imagined process.

Imagination is the reason I haul my lazy ass out of this chair to re-establish an order to things, after nature’s weathering attacks.

I imagine what will happen if I don’t. Varmints and weeds everywhere, among other happenings that I can accurately imagine.


(I know what you meant, but when you think about it ...)
Post Reply