Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Age]

God does not just accept genocides.
God manfates genocides.
God instructs genocides to be performed.
God stands by and watches genocides as they occur.
Despite being all powerful God does not stop genocides.
Genocides are carryed out with the implicit and explicit intent of God.
Does this mean God is a moral relativist?

And 'this' coming from one who claims that God does not even exist.

[Iwannaplato]

No. I just move in mysterious ways.

Oh, good. Even if I don't know what the objective morals are, it is soothing to know someone does (someone other than VA).

But "veritas aequitas" does not know what the actual 'objective morals' are.

Let me help you here.
I was responding to a post by God, who is presenting themselves as God. I think I know who this is, in fact, but that's a side issue.
I say to someone called God, presenting themselves as God that it is soothing to know someone knows objective morals, in this case God.
I then say (someone other than VA).

There are many clues in there that this should not be taken literally.

Humans, at the time this is being written, have a kind of communication that requires a great deal of understanding of context. A radical focus on the definition of words comes from an impoverished view of communication, even on the internet.

I can only hope that your response to me here was also ironic, dare I say, intended to be funny.

Which would mean, that I missed some context cues, and you do have a sense of humor.

If so, the jokes on me, but actually, this would make me happy.

Good luck in your continued efforts to improve your communication. I would suggest some works on communication in the fields of anthropology and semiotics, perhaps with some courses in body language. While the last is not present online, understanding that words are the tip of the iceberg is so easily grasped when one understands body language. Just as the brain is not just Broca's and Wernick's areas, but the whole darn thing working as a whole, in fact intermingled with other brains, minds, entities, species and whole ecosystems of life churning along outside dictionaries.

[Age]

Looks like you are not aware of many things or knowledge that are essential to the relevant topics we discussed.

IWP: VA does not consider animals moral agents.
I don't deny animals [higher] possess what we would termed as moral elements, e.g. incest avoidance, and others.

What IWP alluded to is my insistence that human morality should not be extended to non-humans animals.
I claim morality should only be confined to humans.

The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.
The reason is humans has evolved [since 6 million years ago] to eat animals [meat, etc.] for survival, thus has to kill animals for food.
This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].

In food production and other circumstances it is inevitable that humans will kill insects and other small animals.

Some will even extend from animals to all living things, including bacteria and viruses. Millions and billions of such are killed with antibiotics and in other circumstances by human actions.

So, at present, it is not practical to include living non-humans within morality practiced by humans.

Nevertheless, as a virtue* [not morality] humans should be compassionate and be considerate to animals to the best of their abilities.
* I consider virtue to be independent of morality.

1) Notice first that VA misses the point I was making completely. I did not argue THAT animals were moral agents or in favor of not killing and eating them. I certainly could make such an argument, but that was not my point.

My point was that a central point in VA's belief system is that morality is innate (and from there objective).

That morality is innate cannot be refuted.

However, that "veritas aequitas" own beliefs, like yours "iwannaplato", get in the way of finding out, clarifying, and understanding how this is actually irrefutably True and Correct, is another matter.

It is one thing to say some thing, but it is another thing to prove that thing True. "veritas aequitas" cannot do so here because of its 'current' beliefs.

The irony is that with animals MORE morality is innate than in humans.

Here is another human being, like the "veritas aequitas" one, who keeps putting human beings into some other category other than 'animal'. If you human beings are not 'animals', then what do you think or believe 'you' are, exactly?

This is because non-human animals generally have to mature much faster than humans.

So, now you human beings are 'back in' the category 'animal'.

Also, how does some human being perceived 'non-human animals generally have to mature faster than humans' claim relate to, supposedly, and allegedly, non-human animals innately have MORE morality, exactly?

What, exactly, does the word 'morality' even mean or is referring to, to you, "iwannaplato"?

The nature/nurture ratio is much higher in animals.

Why?

What could the nature/nature ratio, supposedly, being much higher in animals being compared to, exactly?

Or, have you gone 'back to' you human beings are, again, not in the category 'animal' here?

If yes, then what is the, supposed nature/nurture ratio in you human beings, exactly?

And, how do you know this, exactly?

Certainly packs of wolves train their young to respect the alpha and such, but in general humans are trained in morality and have to be to a greater degree. We are more neuroplastic regarding behavior (and attitude).

None of this logically follows nor even really correlates here, well not to me anyway.

1. Do wolves, intentionally, train their young to respect the alpha, or are the young just, naturally, scared of 'the alpha', anyway?

2. If you have been trained in 'morality', then A) What is 'morality' to you, exactly? B) What have you been 'trained' to do, and not do, exactly, which fits in with 'morality', to you?

3. Why do you human beings, in general, 'have to be' trained in morality, to a greater degree? And, 'in a greater degree' compared to 'what', exactly?

So, the irony is that a foundational part of VA's schema is that morality is objective because it is innate while at the same time he denies animals being moral agents even though their morality - sense of fairness, for example, is much more built in.

But 'we' are still waiting for you to prove how non-human animal's supposed 'morality' is supposedly much more 'built in', while 'we' wait for 'you' to inform 'us' of what 'morality' even is to you.

2) Notice this:

This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].

Sentence one: it cannot happen soon.
Sentence two: it cannot happen.

And, if there is an 'objective morality', then 'it' must be 'built in' or 'innate', and thus could not change over any night nor over any generations, at all anyway.

Unless things like 'objective morality' can change, over time. Is this true, to you, "veritas aequitas"?

The second problem with this framing of the issue is that it is binary. The possibility of reducing the killing of animals is not considered. If it was moral, then we could do what we could. If it isn't a moral obligation, well, then we don't need to. But basically his argument is we can't completely eliminate the killing of animals, so it's not a moral consideration. Which is a category confusion.

3) Let's remember also that VA presents contradictory messages about what objective morality is.
Above he talks about

The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.

That's deontology. A rule about behavior. But many other times he has talked about morality being related to shifting in attitudes: for example, towards compassion and empathy. In fact he has called deontological morality primitive and not the real morality, berating people for not remembering he has said this -when they point out, for example, all variations in deontological rules out there. But he seems to forget this himself when he presents human morality in a deontological form. Now he does put it in citation marks. So, perhaps it isn't to be taken as deontology...

BUTTTTTT! Here's the problem.

He talks about compassion, in relation to animals, as virtue, which isn't morality. And back when he talked a lot about mirror neurons and empathy he exactly described the enhancement of virtues, like compassion and empathy AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Not that crude deontological stuff, but changing people so that had more of certain traits like compassion which would in turn lead to fewer homicides. That was the real morality.

But here it is relegated to a mere virtue, these character traits.

Which is why I consider VA belief system to be an ad hoc flexible non-system which develops in reaction to criticism by simply changing to an appropriate defense or offensive in reaction to the latest critique. Rather than a coherent belief system.

"veritas aequitas" belief-system is skewed so-much that it believes 'morality', which is solely based on 'mental constructs' or 'thinking' exists 'objectively', but also claims that actual 'physical objects' and things like galaxies, stars, planets and even earth did not and do not exist until and unless human beings are existing.

Which isn't necessarily a problem if it is openly admitted to be such. I think a lot of people move through life changing priorities, criteria, rules without internal consistency.

Which you have shown you do within the time it took you to write just this one post of yours here "iwannaplato".

[Age]

Looks like you are not aware of many things or knowledge that are essential to the relevant topics we discussed.

IWP: VA does not consider animals moral agents.
I don't deny animals [higher] possess what we would termed as moral elements, e.g. incest avoidance, and others.

What IWP alluded to is my insistence that human morality should not be extended to non-humans animals.
I claim morality should only be confined to humans.

1) Notice first that VA misses the point I was making completely. I did not argue THAT animals were moral agents or in favor of not killing and eating them. I certainly could make such an argument, but that was not my point.

My point was that a central point in VA's belief system is that morality is innate (and from there objective).

The irony is that with animals MORE morality is innate than in humans. This is because non-human animals generally have to mature much faster than humans. The nature/nurture ratio is much higher in animals. Certainly packs of wolves train their young to respect the alpha and such, but in general humans are trained in morality and have to be to a greater degree. We are more neuroplastic regarding behavior (and attitude).

So, the irony is that a foundational part of VA's schema is that morality is objective because it is innate while at the same time he denies animals being moral agents even though their morality - sense of fairness, for example, is much more built in.

Humans and all other animals share many common features.
It does not mean that animals must be taken into account for every topic [science, economics, political, finance, legal, etc.] where there are common features.

The point is before we talk of morality we need to establish what is an effective human-based morality-proper FSRK, i.e. to establish its constitution, principles and all necessary conditions.

I define morality-proper* as the management of evil to facilitate the generation of the related good. [as evident from human nature].

Do you really think or believe that 'this' cleared absolutely anything at all here "veritas aequitas?

To me, all you have really done is make your claims even more 'muddied', if that is really possible. For example, why bring the word 'proper' with the word 'morality' this time? And, what does the asterisks, if that is what it is, have to do with absolutely anything here?

Whatever there are in non-human animals nature, none cannot fit into the definition of my definition of morality-proper.

Do you even know what is so-called 'in non-human animal's nature'? If you do not, then why do you presume they have one?

Therefore morality as defined [per its constitution] is to be excluded from the morality-proper FSRK.

What 'constitution'? Are you under some sort of illusion that 'morality', itself, which here you are saying is 'to be excluded' from whatever the so-called 'now' 'morality-proper fsrk is exactly, has, itself, 'its very own constitution'?

If yes, then how and why, exactly?

[Age]

Oh, good. Even if I don't know what the objective morals are, it is soothing to know someone does (someone other than VA).

But "veritas aequitas" does not know what the actual 'objective morals' are.

Let me help you here.
I was responding to a post by God, who is presenting themselves as God. I think I know who this is, in fact, but that's a side issue.
I say to someone called God, presenting themselves as God that it is soothing to know someone knows objective morals, in this case God.
I then say (someone other than VA).

Yes I know. That is why I was agreeing with you, while at the exact same time just saying and pointing out, in a shortened version now, that "veritas aequitas" does not know what the actual 'objective morals' are at all. "veritas aequitas" is just saying and claiming that they exist, only.

There are many clues in there that this should not be taken literally.

Why?

Someone does know what the objective morals are, exactly, and, "veritas aequitas" does not know what the objective morals are, at all.

So, why should what you said and wrote here not be taken literally?

Humans, at the time this is being written, have a kind of communication that requires a great deal of understanding of context. A radical focus on the definition of words comes from an impoverished view of communication, even on the internet.

This in your view, judgment, and belief, correct?

Which, 'we' have already agreed upon and accepted could be Wrong and/or Incorrect, correct?

I can only hope that your response to me here was also ironic, dare I say, intended to be funny.

Which would mean, that I missed some context cues, and you do have a sense of humor.

If so, the jokes on me, but actually, this would make me happy.

Good luck in your continued efforts to improve your communication. I would suggest some works on communication in the fields of anthropology and semiotics, perhaps with some courses in body language.

Yes, because 'body language' is really, really important when the only thing to look at and/or hear are words alone, right?

While the last is not present online, understanding that words are the tip of the iceberg is so easily grasped when one understands body language.

But words are the 'whole iceberg', as some would say and point out here, when words are all 'we' have, exactly like what 'we' have here, in this forum.

Just as the brain is not just Broca's and Wernick's areas, but the whole darn thing working as a whole, in fact intermingled with other brains, minds, entities, species and whole ecosystems of life churning along outside dictionaries.

Okay, if you say so.

But what you have said, and written, here still stands for all to look at, and see. And, if you want to believe that your words here could not be taken literally, then all is well and good. One day you might start saying and writing here what you actually mean. But, until then, and maybe contrary to what you 'currently' believe is true, some of your words above here could, literally, be taken literally, and also be actually proved irrefutably True, as well.

Those words, however, as you just pointed out are not necessarily the ones you believe could be.

[Sculptor]

God does not just accept genocides.
God manufactures genocides.
God instructs genocides to be performed.
God stands by and watches genocides as they occur.
Despite being all powerful God does not stop genocides.
Genocides are carryed out with the implicit and explicit intent of God.
Does this mean God is a moral relativist?

And 'this' coming from one who claims that God does not even exist.

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education? or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

[Iwannaplato]

Also, how does some human being perceived 'non-human animals generally have to mature faster than humans' claim relate to, supposedly, and allegedly, non-human animals innately have MORE morality, exactly?

It doesn't.
Other than that many of your usual assumptions about what communication should be like, based on your own limitations as a communicator/reader/listener are quite apparent to the people living at the time of this writing. You see trees ok, but not the forest that well. And this affects both your approach and understanding.

[Iwannaplato]

So, why should what you said and wrote here not be taken literally?

Again, I think this is the kind of thing you need to mull over and not see as other people's responsibility to explain to you. You give the burden of your weaknesses and interests to other people as their burden of proof.
Take responsibility for your weaknesses. This needs more work than words on a screen.
Now if you feel the urge to universalize my reaction to you here this is an example of the problem. You are poor at context.
I would not say that to everyone: it is not a rule for online discussion forum behavior.
It is a good question for you to ask, but not to get someone else to give you a verbal answer, but as an area of knowledge you have a weakness in and that you need to explore, and mostly in face to face life with people, perhaps supported by works of the type I have suggested elsewhere.

This in your view, judgment, and belief, correct?

Which, 'we' have already agreed upon and accepted could be Wrong and/or Incorrect, correct?

Not that much of your commmunication is repetition and requests for repetition (when you remember that people have said things). This is part of the reason people think it is possible you are a bot.

Yes, because 'body language' is really, really important when the only thing to look at and/or hear are words alone, right?

Do you see how much you lack patience. The very next sentence addresses this issue, but you could not resist the change to be critical.

While the last is not present online, understanding that words are the tip of the iceberg is so easily grasped when one understands body language.

But words are the 'whole iceberg', as some would say and point out here, when words are all 'we' have, exactly like what 'we' have here, in this forum.

No, words are not the whole iceberg here. Sentences, previous interactions, thread titles and focii, what is not written about and more. Body language, as I said, is a great way to understand that words are the tip of the ice and this is true even here.

Sure, one could argue that we are just atoms in some complex pattern. But one would hardly understand humans that way. Yes, language is simpler than humans, but your ridiculous focus on each word is doomed to failure because you are so clueless about context, even the context of online communication.

I strongly recommend you look up the philosophy of internal relations. A word's meaning changes from one sentence to the next, from one specific interation to another. Yes, defining words can be useful. But until you learn about context your communication and ability to understand others will be very limited.

Okay, if you say so.

But what you have said, and written, here still stands for all to look at, and see. And, if you want to believe that your words here could not be taken literally, then all is well and good.

Obviously they could be, but were they taken literally because you have a weakness in communication skills?

At not point do you seem to consider this possible. Which is, of course, up to you.

One day you might start saying and writing here what you actually mean.

See, you really don't understand context. I did way what I meant, but determining what someone means includes noticing context. Others would have, you didn't. We all miss context sometimes, but you have a more severe deficit with it than most, certainly at your IQ level.

But, until then, and maybe contrary to what you 'currently' believe is true, some of your words above here could, literally, be taken literally, and also be actually proved irrefutably True, as well.

Those words, however, as you just pointed out are not necessarily the ones you believe could be.

You can try to be right. You can defend yourself and you ego. You can try to blame me.

Or you could consider that you have a deficit.

Up to you, obviously.

[Age]

God does not just accept genocides.
God manufactures genocides.
God instructs genocides to be performed.
God stands by and watches genocides as they occur.
Despite being all powerful God does not stop genocides.
Genocides are carryed out with the implicit and explicit intent of God.
Does this mean God is a moral relativist?

And 'this' coming from one who claims that God does not even exist.

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education?

Is 'what' do to so-called 'poor education'?

or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

'We' are not blind to 'irony', 'we' just question why some of you do what you do.

[Sculptor]

And 'this' coming from one who claims that God does not even exist.

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education?

Is 'what' do to so-called 'poor education'?

or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

'We' are not blind to 'irony', 'we' just question why some of you do what you do.

I think I can see the answer here.
Probably attention span more than anything.
I'm going to suggest a poor diet, compounded by a poor education.

[Iwannaplato]

God does not just accept genocides.
God manufactures genocides.
God instructs genocides to be performed.
God stands by and watches genocides as they occur.
Despite being all powerful God does not stop genocides.
Genocides are carryed out with the implicit and explicit intent of God.
Does this mean God is a moral relativist?

And 'this' coming from one who claims that God does not even exist.

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education? or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

How ironic, I've just been trying to help Age understand that he is a terrible reader of context.
Even when one can show very clear examples of where he misses contextual clues, he will try to blame it on the other person.
But I'm sure you're not optimistic he's going to admit he has anything to learn about context, such as irony.

[Age]

Also, how does some human being perceived 'non-human animals generally have to mature faster than humans' claim relate to, supposedly, and allegedly, non-human animals innately have MORE morality, exactly?

It doesn't.

Great. I could not see how it could.

Other than that many of your usual assumptions about what communication should be like, based on your own limitations as a communicator/reader/listener are quite apparent to the people living at the time of this writing.

So, once again, 'we' have another here, and this one again, who says and claims things, based off of absolutely nothing at all other than its own personally gained prejudiced presumptions and beliefs, and then when questioned and challenged it on those beliefs and claims has absolutely nothing at all to show, nor provide.

Once again, I will suggest that before one comes into a public arena, and especially one like a philosophy forum, then before you even begin to start to express and present your assumptions and beliefs about things being true, especially public, then it will be much, much better, for you, if you gain the actual proof for those things, first.

That way you will then have something you can actually to back up and support your claims, when being questioned and/or challenged over them.

To me, communication, especially within a philosophy forum involves being questioned and/or challenged over what one says and claims, and also being about to back up and support what one says and claims, as well.

But, of course, communication can, and obviously does, mean something completely different to you "iwannaplato".

You see trees ok, but not the forest that well. And this affects both your approach and understanding.

you have been and are missing both the trees, and the forest, here "iwannaplato".

The 'forest' to me is what is changing, into what is about to come, relative to you, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written.

What do you consider is the 'forest', exactly, which you believe that I do not see 'that well'?

[Iwannaplato]

So, once again, 'we' have another here, and this one again, who says and claims things, based off of a....

The only person who loses when you play the 'if you can't prove it' game is you, in this case. If you don't have a problem with context, then you can easily ignore me. If you do have that problem, then somehow hinging dealing with it on my ability to prove it online...that's your loss. Ken has issues that relate to this. And Age, flowing as he does from Ken, has 'inherited' them.

You have claimed that your purpose in coming here is to learn how to communicate better.

Well, that seems limited to specific definitions of words. That you might have more complicated, intimate problem that will require some real work...off the table.

Again, your loss.

And yeah, it's probably just a coincidence that within a few minutes two people have noticed the issue and that others in a small forum have also noticed it.

Yup, only other people have issues they need to work on. It's always other people's core problems because you have transcended these things.

[Sculptor]

And 'this' coming from one who claims that God does not even exist.

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education? or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

How ironic, I've just been trying to help Age understand that he is a terrible reader of context.
Even when one can show very clear examples of where he misses contextual clues, he will try to blame it on the other person.
But I'm sure you're not optimistic he's going to admit he has anything to learn about context, such as irony.

LOL.
Yes. Let's put it this way. I'll not be holding my breath whilst waiting for him to get it.
He'll just be asking me why I would ever want to hold my breath!!

[Sculptor]

So, once again, 'we' have another here, and this one again, who says and claims things, based off of a....

You have claimed that your purpose in coming here is to learn how to communicate better.

If this is the case: you have to be open to understanding.
From what I can see here is that you are not