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."
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."
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.