Christian Morality

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

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:09 am There are many such case as above.
You promised "many."

You gave one.

One is not "many."

Let's see your data.
To me 'nature' is merely an emergence.
"An emergence?"

You're not using that word in a conventional way. You 'd best say what you mean by your usage.

But you say this "emergence" has intelligence of some kind, and is not "stupid" ? Yes, you'd best explain that.
I have defined 'evil' elsewhere as any human act that is net-negative

"Net-negative" being defined by whom?
In the Holocaust, the Nazis believed that killing people was "net positive." It conduced to their "master race," they saw.
How is your definition less arbitrary than theirs?
Strawman as usual,
No. It's a real case that shows that "net negative" is not a universally known or stable thing.
The killing of all those who are not of the 'master race' perhaps 90% of the world population then would not be for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
It only depends on who you count.

For a eugenicist, the "less-evolved" are a problem to the human race, a thing to be eliminated, and do not count.

So "well-being" and "humanity" also are not fixed and universally-recognized qualities. You'd should explain how you decide what counts.
While nature "programs" death, it also "programs' continual birth to ensure the survival of the species.
So death, which is so "negative" for all individuals, is "net-positive" because it conduces to "survival of the species"?

If you think like that, you'd make a good Nazi.
From empirical evidence it is obvious the main drive is to produce the next generation, so the "program" is to target for birth of the next generation, and then when that is done, then death pursues.
Note the case of salmon, mayfly, and so many living things that follow such a pattern and it is the same with humans.
Yep, the Nazis would agfree with you. They'd say that human beings are "the same" as animals, and should be managed through eugenics...so death is a "net-positive" to them: they think it keeps the race "pure."
Note it is an analogy. You understand how an analogy is supposed to work?
Yep. And this one doesn't "work" at all.

So spell it out, and be literal. How does bi-genderism imply objective moral facts?
The biological fact of male/female is encoded in the DNA just a the moral fact of say 'not wanting to be rape' if encoded in the DNA of all humans.
You haven't shown that "not wanting to be X" is a moral property. What does the rapist care what his victim "wants"? In fact, he knows she doesn't "want" what he's doing...that's part of what he likes about it.

Prove he's wrong, and she's right.
I anticipate you will again try to be deceptive in cutting out the relevant and critical points in my statements in your next counters. Note this is sinful.
:D Now you're really being amusing...and transparent, too.

You don't make "relevant and critical points" I "cut out." What I tend to ignore is your treating your old (and, it seems, inevitably erroneous) conversations in previous threads, to which you link back as if they were some kind of evidence. :shock: It's pretty funny that you think "what I just said" constitutes something "relevant and critical," that one would be "deceptive" to "cut out." None of it was remotely "relevant" or evidentiary in the first place.

No, you'll have to provide the proof and evidence right here. We're not going to take for granted that an old thread in which you rattled on is "proof" of anything...you can keep counting on that, for sure.

In fact, it makes me wonder if you even know what "evidence" or "proof" is: but we shall see.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:09 am There are many such case as above.
You promised "many."
You gave one.
One is not "many."
Let's see your data.
You are exposing your ignorance.
If you are well read you would have agreed with me even from the one example I gave which trounced you earlier arrogance from ignorance.

Here is another,
To most of his suburban Chicago neighbors, John Wayne Gacy was a friendly man who threw popular block parties, volunteered in local Democratic politics and often performed as a clown at local children’s parties.
https://www.history.com/news/8-of-histo ... al-killers
John Wayne Gacy (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) was an American serial killer and pederast who raped, tortured, and murdered at least 33 young men and boys.
Wiki
If you are well read, you would have read many of the Jihadist suicide bombers were 'goody-two-shoes' that shocked their family when they out of the blue were reported as suicide bombers who had killed many.

The general principle as I claimed is, all humans are "programmed" with good and evil potential which has independent neural circuits which can be triggered by different circumstances.
To me 'nature' is merely an emergence.
"An emergence?"
You're not using that word in a conventional way. You 'd best say what you mean by your usage.
But you say this "emergence" has intelligence of some kind, and is not "stupid" ? Yes, you'd best explain that.
I have already explained, my use of 'intelligence' 'stupid' re nature is not to be take literally.

"Net-negative" being defined by whom?
In the Holocaust, the Nazis believed that killing people was "net positive." It conduced to their "master race," they saw.
How is your definition less arbitrary than theirs?
Strawman as usual,
No. It's a real case that shows that "net negative" is not a universally known or stable thing.
As stated above, all humans are "programmed" with good and evil potential which has independent neural circuits which can be triggered by different circumstances.
Why I qualify 'net negativity' is when I claim a certain people is negative, someone will insist on 'what about the good he had done'.
'Net negativity' is there more negative than the positive [with weightages].
In addition, no human can be perfect thus would have committed certain acts that are negative which are minor, thus a good person would be a net-positive thing while an evil person would be net-negative, e.g. the serial killers I mentioned earlier.
The killing of all those who are not of the 'master race' perhaps 90% of the world population then would not be for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
It only depends on who you count.

For a eugenicist, the "less-evolved" are a problem to the human race, a thing to be eliminated, and do not count.

So "well-being" and "humanity" also are not fixed and universally-recognized qualities. You'd should explain how you decide what counts.
It is not me but re the Master Race, Hitler claimed his people were those of the Master Race, i.e. those with Aryan genetics which is a small percentage of the world's population.
As such in theory, if Hitler were true to his words and killed all except those of the Aryan origin, the world population may be reduced below the critical mass to sustain humanity in the longer run, thus not for the well-being of humanity.
So death, which is so "negative" for all individuals, is "net-positive" because it conduces to "survival of the species"?
If you think like that, you'd make a good Nazi.
From empirical evidence it is obvious the main drive is to produce the next generation, so the "program" is to target for birth of the next generation, and then when that is done, then death pursues.
Note the case of salmon, mayfly, and so many living things that follow such a pattern and it is the same with humans.
Yep, the Nazis would agfree with you. They'd say that human beings are "the same" as animals, and should be managed through eugenics...so death is a "net-positive" to them: they think it keeps the race "pure."
Strawman again.
The above is a general principle for the whole of humanity not just the Nazi.
Yep. And this one doesn't "work" at all.

So spell it out, and be literal. How does bi-genderism imply objective moral facts?
The biological fact of male/female is encoded in the DNA just a the moral fact of say 'not wanting to be rape' if encoded in the DNA of all humans.
You haven't shown that "not wanting to be X" is a moral property. What does the rapist care what his victim "wants"? In fact, he knows she doesn't "want" what he's doing...that's part of what he likes about it.

Prove he's wrong, and she's right.
As with Henry's point, even the slaver will not want to be enslave, so no rapist would want to be raped as well.
As I had argued, this ought-not-ness to be rape is inherent and represented by a physical reference in the DNA and brain [neural correlates] thus is a moral fact within a moral FSK.
I anticipate you will again try to be deceptive in cutting out the relevant and critical points in my statements in your next counters. Note this is sinful.
:D Now you're really being amusing...and transparent, too.

You don't make "relevant and critical points" I "cut out." What I tend to ignore is your treating your old (and, it seems, inevitably erroneous) conversations in previous threads, to which you link back as if they were some kind of evidence. :shock: It's pretty funny that you think "what I just said" constitutes something "relevant and critical," that one would be "deceptive" to "cut out." None of it was remotely "relevant" or evidentiary in the first place.

No, you'll have to provide the proof and evidence right here. We're not going to take for granted that an old thread in which you rattled on is "proof" of anything...you can keep counting on that, for sure.

In fact, it makes me wonder if you even know what "evidence" or "proof" is: but we shall see.
It is so often, you often picked one sentence of my response and ignore the relevant explanation that followed within the same point.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:09 am There are many such case as above.
You promised "many."
You gave one.
One is not "many."
Let's see your data.
You are exposing your ignorance.
You are exposing your lack of data.
all humans are "programmed" with good and evil potential which has independent neural circuits which can be triggered by different circumstances.

This says nothing. If a person can choose between good and evil, then she is not "programmed" at all.
To me 'nature' is merely an emergence.
"An emergence?"
You're not using that word in a conventional way. You 'd best say what you mean by your usage.
But you say this "emergence" has intelligence of some kind, and is not "stupid" ? Yes, you'd best explain that.
I have already explained, my use of 'intelligence' 'stupid' re nature is not to be take literally.
Well, it also means nothing, then. For as a metaphor, it failed to illuminate anything literally true.

But you haven't said what you mean by "emergence".
Strawman as usual,
No. It's a real case that shows that "net negative" is not a universally known or stable thing.
Why I qualify 'net negativity'
I didn't ask that. I just pointed out that it referred to nothing.
For a eugenicist, the "less-evolved" are a problem to the human race, a thing to be eliminated, and do not count.

So "well-being" and "humanity" also are not fixed and universally-recognized qualities. You'd should explain how you decide what counts.
It is not me but re the Master Race, Hitler claimed his people were those of the Master Race, i.e. those with Aryan genetics which is a small percentage of the world's population.
That also depends on whom you count. For the Nazis, it was the Aryans. Everybody else is "not human" or "subhuman" to them.

Prove they are wrong not to count the others.

From empirical evidence it is obvious the main drive is to produce the next generation, so the "program" is to target for birth of the next generation, and then when that is done, then death pursues.
Note the case of salmon, mayfly, and so many living things that follow such a pattern and it is the same with humans.
Yep, the Nazis would agfree with you. They'd say that human beings are "the same" as animals, and should be managed through eugenics...so death is a "net-positive" to them: they think it keeps the race "pure."
The above is a general principle for the whole of humanity not just the Nazi.
Let's see you show that. How do you demonstrate to a Nazi that "human" isn't a category that properly only fully applies only to Aryans. Or prove to a Southern Democrat from the Civil War period that blacks should be included in the count of "humans." Or prove to anybody that "human" is a category of special morally-relevant entities that should be counted.

You've got nothing for any of those. And no, they're not "straw men": they're actual counterexamples that disprove your claim that everybody just knows what a "human" is, and that everybody agrees.
The biological fact of male/female is encoded in the DNA just a the moral fact of say 'not wanting to be rape' if encoded in the DNA of all humans.
You haven't shown that "not wanting to be X" is a moral property. What does the rapist care what his victim "wants"? In fact, he knows she doesn't "want" what he's doing...that's part of what he likes about it.

Prove he's wrong, and she's right.
As with Henry's point, even the slaver will not want to be enslave, so no rapist would want to be raped as well.
Two points: one is that some people do. Sick, yes: but they do. So you'd have to show they are wrong.
Second point: where is the rule written that it is wrong to do something to somebody that you don't want done to you? You would have to prove that first, in order to make that case. Because the slaver and rapist do not expect it will be done to them, and do not fear it will happen to them, and thus are not hindered by that prospect.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christian Morality

Post by henry quirk »

VA, Mannie,

A clarfication: even the slaver, as buys and sells men, knows it's wrong that he should be leashed.

A man's natural right to himself is not an opinion or a preference, it's integral to him. It's a fact. a man belongs to himself, he is his own, full stop.

As he is his own, as he knows, in his bones, that he is his own, he knows it's wrong he be abused or leashed. It's a moral fact it's wrong to leash, murder, rape, and rob him, full stop.

Whether this fact and moral fact are built into Reality by the Christian God or the deist Prime Mover, or are simply brute, is irrelevant.

Man is a free will and he's not meant to be property.

Just sayin'...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 1:26 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:09 pm
You promised "many."
You gave one.
One is not "many."
Let's see your data.
You are exposing your ignorance.
You are exposing your lack of data.
I agree I have the onus to provide data but this is more like average public knowledge, especially we often hear of goody-two-shoes turning out to be evil.
Crimes [evil acts] of passions committed by supposedly good people is also common and public knowledge.
Thus to insist on data is exposing your own ignorance.
all humans are "programmed" with good and evil potential which has independent neural circuits which can be triggered by different circumstances.

This says nothing. If a person can choose between good and evil, then she is not "programmed" at all.
Again you are displaying your ignorance.
There are many levels of consciousness and cognition within the human mind.
Where humans are driven to evil acts or even good acts based on instincts they are not consciously choosing at all!

Note
The somatic marker hypothesis, formulated by Antonio Damasio and associated researchers, proposes that emotional processes guide (or bias) behavior, particularly decision-making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis
In economic theory, human decision-making is often modeled as being devoid of emotions, involving only logical reasoning based on cost-benefit calculations.[3] In contrast, the somatic marker hypothesis proposes that emotions play a critical role in the ability to make fast, rational decisions in complex and uncertain situations.
The above exposes your ignorance on the topic. Note there are many other examples.
"An emergence?"
You're not using that word in a conventional way. You 'd best say what you mean by your usage.
But you say this "emergence" has intelligence of some kind, and is not "stupid" ? Yes, you'd best explain that.
I have already explained, my use of 'intelligence' 'stupid' re nature is not to be take literally.
Well, it also means nothing, then. For as a metaphor, it failed to illuminate anything literally true.

But you haven't said what you mean by "emergence".
Whatever exists in reality is an emergence.
  • In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
    -wiki
For example waves emerge out of the ocean from a system of connected variables.
Snow emerge in the air upon a certain conditions of connected variables.
A child emerges out of system of connected variables, it is not plonked into existence like Adam from God.
Because of partial determination there is no first cause for anything that emerges, thus the concept of emergence is the most effective basis of reality as it is.
The above is a general principle for the whole of humanity not just the Nazi.
Let's see you show that. How do you demonstrate to a Nazi that "human" isn't a category that properly only fully applies only to Aryans. Or prove to a Southern Democrat from the Civil War period that blacks should be included in the count of "humans." Or prove to anybody that "human" is a category of special morally-relevant entities that should be counted.

You've got nothing for any of those. And no, they're not "straw men": they're actual counterexamples that disprove your claim that everybody just knows what a "human" is, and that everybody agrees.
Its a strawman.
My point is a group of people [say Hitler & Aryans] were to kill all except their kind, it may reduce the world's population below the critical mass necessary to ensure any human [including themselves] survive thereafter.
You haven't shown that "not wanting to be X" is a moral property. What does the rapist care what his victim "wants"? In fact, he knows she doesn't "want" what he's doing...that's part of what he likes about it.

Prove he's wrong, and she's right.
As with Henry's point, even the slaver will not want to be enslave, so no rapist would want to be raped as well.
Two points: one is that some people do. Sick, yes: but they do. So you'd have to show they are wrong.
Second point: where is the rule written that it is wrong to do something to somebody that you don't want done to you? You would have to prove that first, in order to make that case. Because the slaver and rapist do not expect it will be done to them, and do not fear it will happen to them, and thus are not hindered by that prospect.
As I had stated it is human nature [a natural norm] of not wanting to be raped.
A rape by definition is sexual violation against the will of a person, thus implied there is no agreement of the person raped.

With morality-proper, there are no external moral rules to be imposed on any individual.
The ought-not-to-rape and not-wanting-to-be-raped is an inherent "programmed" neural potential [note potential] in the brain of any individual.
Thus when the neural potential is active, the individual will spontaneously align with the above oughts and ought-not.

As I had highlighted the above is analogous to the inherent puberty potential "programmed" in all humans. At a certain age, hormones will trigger this potential to be active transforming the individual to be an adult male or female.
However there are exceptions due to defective RNA replication with the occurrence of trangenderism.

While the inherent puberty potential is very obvious, the inherent moral potentials are more subtle as it is not active in the majority at present.

But it is evident the progressive positive trend in anti-slavery, anti-rape, anti-violence and anti-evil-acts around the world since 5000 years ago is evident the inherent moral potential is gradually unfolding and becoming more active.

Therefore ALL humans are "programmed" with a moral potential which is active in some, and very less active in the majority at present.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Haven’t been here in a while. Thread seemed interesting. Now all I see latest pages here is argumenting and it is hard to see a clear line. Are there any interesting points of debate that has been found, that can help to see what has been found fruitful in the discussions here?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:55 am ...to insist on data is exposing your own ignorance.
That may be the funniest line you've said yet.
all humans are "programmed" with good and evil potential which has independent neural circuits which can be triggered by different circumstances.

This says nothing. If a person can choose between good and evil, then she is not "programmed" at all.
Where humans are driven to evil acts or even good acts based on instincts they are not consciously choosing at all!
Nobody's "driven" to anything. Some things may be more palatable than others, but no choice is inevitable.

That's what free will means. It means that you choose what you do...and are fully responsible for it.
But you haven't said what you mean by "emergence".
Whatever exists in reality is an emergence.
I was right: you don't know what an "emergence" is.
For example waves emerge out of the ocean from a system of connected variables.
Nope. That's not how "emergence" is used in reference to human consciousness. Sorry.

Waves are 100% material. The "emergence" hypothesis argues that consciousness just appears when the brain reaches a particular level of complexity. They don't know how -- they don't even try to say. It's a sort of "magical" explanation for the fact that consciousness exists, a way to try to save crass Materialism from an obvious incoherence in its theory.

You've been using the word in its merely common, colloquial sense. So in regard to morality or consciousness, it really doesn't explain anything. There, it just means "(somehow) come out of." It's too vague to be explanatory at all.
The above is a general principle for the whole of humanity not just the Nazi.
Let's see you show that. How do you demonstrate to a Nazi that "human" isn't a category that properly only fully applies only to Aryans. Or prove to a Southern Democrat from the Civil War period that blacks should be included in the count of "humans." Or prove to anybody that "human" is a category of special morally-relevant entities that should be counted.

You've got nothing for any of those. And no, they're not "straw men": they're actual counterexamples that disprove your claim that everybody just knows what a "human" is, and that everybody agrees.
My point is a group of people [say Hitler & Aryans] were to kill all except their kind, it may reduce the world's population below the critical mass necessary to ensure any human [including themselves] survive thereafter.
No, that's not even a reasonable guess. There is no low-bar to how many humans it takes in order for them to survive. Even two could, provided one's male and female.

So you've still got the problem: since the Master race "solution" is empirically possible, how do you prove it's immoral? How do you prove they owe it to regard Jews, gypsies, blacks, etc. as counting as "human"?
As with Henry's point, even the slaver will not want to be enslave, so no rapist would want to be raped as well.
Two points: one is that some people do. Sick, yes: but they do. So you'd have to show they are wrong.
Second point: where is the rule written that it is wrong to do something to somebody that you don't want done to you? You would have to prove that first, in order to make that case. Because the slaver and rapist do not expect it will be done to them, and do not fear it will happen to them, and thus are not hindered by that prospect.
As I had stated it is human nature [a natural norm] of not wanting to be raped.
How do you know it's a "natural norm"? Just by numbers? But then you're back to the Aryan problem again: you can't prove who counts as human.
A rape by definition is sexual violation against the will of a person, thus implied there is no agreement of the person raped.
But you haven't established that "agreement" is a moral property, or that it's even required.
With morality-proper, there are no external moral rules to be imposed on any individual.
How do you establish this?
Therefore ALL humans are "programmed" with a moral potential which is active in some, and very less active in the majority at present.
You're just assuming that. You're empirically wrong, of course. Narcissists lack the "moral potential" of which you speak: they feel no compassion for their victims. So do sociopaths, psychopaths and so on.

But worse still, you can't show that even if there were "moral feelings" in people "active in some, very less active in the majority" (you say), which one is right? If you go with the "majority," the "norm," as you say, then by your own telling, you're advocating that we should have "less active morality." :shock: So now you're in a real pickle, logically.

But that's where you've been all along: you just don't know it, it seems.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by promethean75 »

"That's what free will means. It means that you choose what you do...and are fully responsible for it."

That's a truism tho because whether or not one is truly a causative agent free from natural necessity and 'law', they would still be held responsible on account of being treated as having freewill and bearing the consequences of one's acts thereby.

Responsibility is no evidence of 'freewill' and being responsible wouldn't prove there was 'freewill', only that through custom and habit, people were treated like they had it.

Not saying you're saying that but just sayin... as part of my obligation to proper philosophy.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

promethean75 wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:29 pm
"That's what free will means. It means that you choose what you do...and are fully responsible for it."
Responsibility is no evidence of 'freewill'
You've got that backwards.

We can only be responsible because we have free will. It's the free will that causes or makes possible the responsibility.

You can't be responsible for what you couldn't help doing...meaning, anything for which you didn't actually have free will.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 3:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:55 am ...to insist on data is exposing your own ignorance.
That may be the funniest line you've said yet.
Here is an example of your very common deception which you tried to deny you have not committed.

As usual you are deceptive in merely cherry pick the statement but not the whole relevant para. I wrote this earlier.
  • I agree I have the onus to provide data but this is more like average public knowledge, especially we often hear of goody-two-shoes turning out to be evil.
    Crimes [evil acts] of passions committed by supposedly good people is also common and public knowledge.
    Thus to insist on data is exposing your own ignorance.
What is so funny given the basis of my explanation?


This says nothing. If a person can choose between good and evil, then she is not "programmed" at all.
Where humans are driven to evil acts or even good acts based on instincts they are not consciously choosing at all!
Nobody's "driven" to anything. Some things may be more palatable than others, but no choice is inevitable.

That's what free will means. It means that you choose what you do...and are fully responsible for it.
Note my reference to 'somatic markers'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis

Can you counter the above?
But you haven't said what you mean by "emergence".
Whatever exists in reality is an emergence.
I was right: you don't know what an "emergence" is.
For example waves emerge out of the ocean from a system of connected variables.
Nope. That's not how "emergence" is used in reference to human consciousness. Sorry.

Waves are 100% material. The "emergence" hypothesis argues that consciousness just appears when the brain reaches a particular level of complexity. They don't know how -- they don't even try to say. It's a sort of "magical" explanation for the fact that consciousness exists, a way to try to save crass Materialism from an obvious incoherence in its theory.

You've been using the word in its merely common, colloquial sense. So in regard to morality or consciousness, it really doesn't explain anything. There, it just means "(somehow) come out of." It's too vague to be explanatory at all.
Strawman and Deception again. I have never mentioned 'consciousness' in this regard.

Note:
the process of coming into existence or prominence.
google dictionary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

I have already explained the above, but you divert start building your strawman.
Let's see you show that. How do you demonstrate to a Nazi that "human" isn't a category that properly only fully applies only to Aryans. Or prove to a Southern Democrat from the Civil War period that blacks should be included in the count of "humans." Or prove to anybody that "human" is a category of special morally-relevant entities that should be counted.

You've got nothing for any of those. And no, they're not "straw men": they're actual counterexamples that disprove your claim that everybody just knows what a "human" is, and that everybody agrees.
My point is a group of people [say Hitler & Aryans] were to kill all except their kind, it may reduce the world's population below the critical mass necessary to ensure any human [including themselves] survive thereafter.
No, that's not even a reasonable guess. There is no low-bar to how many humans it takes in order for them to survive. Even two could, provided one's male and female.

So you've still got the problem: since the Master race "solution" is empirically possible, how do you prove it's immoral? How do you prove they owe it to regard Jews, gypsies, blacks, etc. as counting as "human"?
Your one male and female is too biblical which imply incest which is immoral.

The main point to the 'master race solution' is in the inevitable killing of humans. Even the killing of one human being is immoral.
Two points: one is that some people do. Sick, yes: but they do. So you'd have to show they are wrong.
Second point: where is the rule written that it is wrong to do something to somebody that you don't want done to you? You would have to prove that first, in order to make that case. Because the slaver and rapist do not expect it will be done to them, and do not fear it will happen to them, and thus are not hindered by that prospect.
As I had stated it is human nature [a natural norm] of not wanting to be raped.
How do you know it's a "natural norm"? Just by numbers? But then you're back to the Aryan problem again: you can't prove who counts as human.
It is by default, rape is defined as sexual assault against the will of the victim.
As such there is no way there is consensus where there is 'rape' which reflect the natural norm of humans.

A rape by definition is sexual violation against the will of a person, thus implied there is no agreement of the person raped.
But you haven't established that "agreement" is a moral property, or that it's even required.
With morality-proper, there are no external moral rules to be imposed on any individual.
How do you establish this?
As I had stated what is morality or moral facts are represented by the inherent moral potential within all humans.
When such moral potentials are activated within each individual, they will act morally spontaneously without any external rules, compulsion or threat.
Therefore ALL humans are "programmed" with a moral potential which is active in some, and very less active in the majority at present.
You're just assuming that. You're empirically wrong, of course. Narcissists lack the "moral potential" of which you speak: they feel no compassion for their victims. So do sociopaths, psychopaths and so on.

But worse still, you can't show that even if there were "moral feelings" in people "active in some, very less active in the majority" (you say), which one is right? If you go with the "majority," the "norm," as you say, then by your own telling, you're advocating that we should have "less active morality." :shock: So now you're in a real pickle, logically.

But that's where you've been all along: you just don't know it, it seems.
You are going on the ignorant path again.
I have mentioned this point many times.

All humans are "programmed" and embedded with moral potentials which need to be activated like that of the puberty potential.
Strawman again, I never said "Narcissists lack the "moral potential" ".
Rather their moral potential are not sufficiently activated while their evil potentials are active and lack modulations or impulse controls.
But worse still, you can't show that even if there were "moral feelings" in people "active in some, very less active in the majority" (you say), which one is right?
If you go with the "majority," the "norm," as you say, then by your own telling, you're advocating that we should have "less active morality." :shock: So now you're in a real pickle, logically.
Your above is not rational and I have to say it is dumb.

There are many perspectives to human nature and psychology and unfortunately with your poor rationality you are conflating most of them.

Note morality as defined pertains exclusively to what is good and right.
We have gone through this, i.e. killing humans, raping, enslaving is not right nor good.

It is very pathetic that to merely counter you have to make yourself really stupid.
You are conflating the norm of moral potentials inherent in human nature with the acts of the majority.

The point is there is a need to make the inherent moral potentials within all human more active in more people so that the majority will act morally.

It is very unfortunate that being a desperate theists and believing in an illusory God to salvage cognitive dissonance with consonance, that has poisoned and restricted your rational mind and thinking.
I can expect the same irrational thoughts and deception with your future responses.
Just to remind you, deception is sinful and that might hinder your passage to eternal life in heaven.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 4:33 am What is so funny given the basis of my explanation?
Never mind. I can see that speaking to you is like trying to drill a hole in water. No sooner does one point out the holes, then you fill them in with a flood of irrelevancies.

I can save myself some time here.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 5:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 4:33 am What is so funny given the basis of my explanation?
Never mind. I can see that speaking to you is like trying to drill a hole in water. No sooner does one point out the holes, then you fill them in with a flood of irrelevancies.

I can save myself some time here.
My advice to you, as a Christian you must not be deceptive in any way [even the slightest], else your passage to eternal life in heaven will be hindered or you may even be sent to Hell.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christian Morality

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 5:15 am My advice to you, as a Christian...
Thank you, no...I can tell you know nothing about what you're talking about.
Post Reply