Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:58 am
Yeah you seem to have no idea that there is an innate moral sense in most people.
Well, that's fine. But you're wrong. I do believe in conscience. Everybody has one.
But that doesn't mean a) everybody listens to it, b) nobody ever rationalizes it away, c) nobody ever damages it or loses touch with it, d) an evil society never dulls it by teaching people to do evil things and telling them that those things are moral and average, e) you don't have to explain to people why X or Y is good or evil, and f) that you can legitimately make laws or establish punishments without any appeal to objective moral standards.
So the fact that people do have consciences doesn't nearly address the problem of establishing terms for morality. The mere existence of an "innate moral sense" manifestly is not enough to keep people moral. That's empirically obvious, too, because if it were not so, nobody would do evil, and nobody would call anything "good' either, because neither word would have meaning.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:37 am
When Immanuel Can says "grounds for believing" he means supernatural grounds for his belief.
That's wrong, B. I don't.
I mean ANY grounds.
Consider the alternative: do you believe it's okay for a person to lie to others, and tell them they are obligated to do X or not to do Y, and use nothing but deception or raw power to make them do the will of the speaker? Then you do believe in totalitarianism, don't you? You believe that using power or deception to make people do things they wouldn't otherwise want to do is just fine.
The alternative to merely using power is legitimized morality, where you not only tell people THAT they have a moral obligation to do X or not to do Y, but you also tell them WHY that is so, so they can consider it through reason, and freely decide to do the right thing. If you deny them that opportunity, you've become a totalitarian.
The precise type of dualism in question isn't mentioned, so I will use a form of reasoning called Abductive Reason to conclude that he means plain oold Cartesian mind-body substance dualism.
don't know that Penfield ever took a position on the nature of that sumthin' extra...the writer of the piece/podcaster, though, he assesses Penfield's observations correspond with Aristotle's so, mebbe, a kind of hylomorphism is the better choice
Well, that's fine. But you're wrong. I do believe in conscience. Everybody has one.
But that doesn't mean a) everybody listens to it, b) nobody ever rationalizes it away, c) nobody ever damages it or loses touch with it, d) an evil society never dulls it by teaching people to do evil things and telling them that those things are moral and average, d) you don't have to explain to people why X or Y is good or evil, and e) that you can legitimately make laws or establish punishments without any appeal to objective moral standards.
So the fact that people do have consciences doesn't nearly address the problem of establishing terms for morality. The mere existence of an "innate moral sense" manifestly is not enough to keep people moral. That's empirically obvious, too, because if it were not so, nobody would do evil, and nobody would call anything "good' either, because neither word would have meaning.
what else do we really have, though?
all justifiable convention, law, codification, roots in the moral sense
you can point to revelation (scripture, for example), god's word; I'll counter that revelation, if real, was still conducted through man, an imperfect, willful creature, prone to interpreting
you know my spiel: god created, is creating: that's the extent of his involvement; he built man to get along without his direct guidance...to that end: each man has a compass that always reveals true north...as a free will , man gets to attend to the compass or ignore it
the question, then: is morality, as you and I see it (as moral fact) adhered to more clearly with revelation, or would the world be pretty much the same without revelation (with only man's moral sense to rely on)
I think the world would be different without theism, but not appreciably better or worse
to be clear: revelation, from my place, is man's attempt to codify the moral sense, not god codifyin' through man
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:58 am
Yeah you seem to have no idea that there is an innate moral sense in most people.
Well, that's fine. But you're wrong. I do believe in conscience. Everybody has one.
But that doesn't mean a) everybody listens to it, b) nobody ever rationalizes it away, c) nobody ever damages it or loses touch with it, d) an evil society never dulls it by teaching people to do evil things and telling them that those things are moral and average, e) you don't have to explain to people why X or Y is good or evil, and f) that you can legitimately make laws or establish punishments without any appeal to objective moral standards.
So the fact that people do have consciences doesn't nearly address the problem of establishing terms for morality. The mere existence of an "innate moral sense" manifestly is not enough to keep people moral. That's empirically obvious, too, because if it were not so, nobody would do evil, and nobody would call anything "good' either, because neither word would have meaning.
Yeah you don't seem to know what a conscience is, if you believe everyone has one.
time to pony up some evidence: mannie, a sociopath? prove it
not the thread, just play with the others
I don't really care about anything you have to say sorry
in other words: you got nuthin' to support your idea Mannie is sociopathic
just another garden-variety pot stirrer
I haven't seen a post of his that didn't support this idea
also, I haven't seen a post of yours that didn't support the idea that you are mentally simply too underdeveloped to even partake in civilized life, that's why people don't pay attention to your incessant retarded whining
I haven't seen a post of his that didn't support this idea
I haven't seen a post from you that evidences the idea.
You made the claim: where's your proof?
also, I haven't seen a post of yours that didn't support the idea that you are mentally simply too underdeveloped to even partake in civilized life, that's why people don't pay attention to your incessant retarded whining
I'm the court jester: my job is to make the rest of you mooks look good (pretty much an impossible job, cuz the bulk of you are garbage people)
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:04 pmI haven't seen a post of his that didn't support this idea
I haven't seen a post from you that evidences the idea.
You made the claim: where's your proof?
also, I haven't seen a post of yours that didn't support the idea that you are mentally simply too underdeveloped to even partake in civilized life, that's why people don't pay attention to your incessant retarded whining
I'm the court jester: my job is to make the rest of you mooks look good (pretty much an impossible job, cuz the bulk of you are garbage people)
See a possible proof above for example, except that you suck at psychology too, so even if I'm wrong, you won't be the one to show why. Asking for a simple direct 'proof' for a complex psychological issue such as a lack of a normal conscience, is extremely dumb and nonsensical in itself anyway.
People don't need a court jester btw, no one really pays attention to you caveman.
you suck at psychology too, so even if I'm wrong, you won't be the one to show why.
yeah, I'm awful
you are wrong
you're doin' the work yourself: I'm just enjoyin'' the show
Asking for a simple direct 'proof' for a complex psychological issue such as a lack of a normal conscience, is extremely dumb and nonsensical in itself anyway.
claimin' someone is sociopathic and then bein' unable to pony up an example is pathetic
People don't need a court jester btw, no one really pays attention to you caveman.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:14 pmyou suck at psychology too, so even if I'm wrong, you won't be the one to show why.
yeah, I'm awful
you are wrong
you're doin' the work yourself: I'm just enjoyin'' the show
Asking for a simple direct 'proof' for a complex psychological issue such as a lack of a normal conscience, is extremely dumb and nonsensical in itself anyway.
claimin' someone is sociopathic and then bein' unable to pony up an example is pathetic
People don't need a court jester btw, no one really pays attention to you caveman.
B might disagree
The example is above, what's pathetic is your inability to read stuff and make sense of it.
Btw do you know what the show is? You wanting to be taken seriously while being only a jester. I guess that's why people on this forum keep you around.
