..good, well thought out replies. I'll tackle this one, first. I observe the opposite. Humans are expanding in population, from irresponsible, 3rd world breeding zones, not educated, responsible, westerns, procreating minimally. Most 'advanced' societies have near zero population growth. Not so for third world countries. So 'evolution!' is favoring the 3rd world irresponsibility, NOT the zero growth westerns. Stable families, moral values, and responsibility are not evolutionary factors, for human reproduction. We observe much more of the opposite, in humanity, and those are the environmental pressures that are 'evolving' humanity at this time. Amorality, not morality, is the environmental pressure for human evolution.
IF.. we assume a God made universe, THEN.. He would have the authority AND the power/ability to embed said morals into His creation. It is absurd to think a mortal creature of the Almighty Creator of the universe, could know better. Something is dreadfully wrong with this creature, if he thinks this way.
I don't suppose it occurs to you that the same could be said of any "opinion", given the willingness of some idiot to manufacture a fault in it.
Occurs to me? I rely on it. It is the basis of scientific peer review, the legal system and public consultations in the public sector.
Do you mean to imply that you'll get around to my main argument at all ever? That's not really happening on an evolutionary time scale. I don't know that any moral evolution has been visible on the timescale of human records. The population increase in 3rd world countries is to a large extent due to the decrease in child mortality, and I don't know that anything equivalent has happened on evolutionary time scales. Either way, I don't see that that population increase has made me, living in the western world, any less able to procure food or mates. But sure, for the sake of argument, if the population increase had been due to particular promiscuity, and was stretched over evolutionary time scales, it is not impossible that we would see a change in perceived morals. I disagree, the benefits of amorality are direct and short term, but that is no reason to believe that there aren't benefits to morality too. Monogamy turns up in other species as well, proving that evolution is capable of finding a benefit in it. A quick googling suggests the most popular explanation is the need for parental investment.
God would certainly have the ability to do so, that's not necessarily the same as saying they aren't god's subjective morals. Whether he has the authority, well, it depends on what we mean by the authority, but in my opinion, in keeping with the is/ought problem, the authority for an objective morality cannot exist. The fact that it requires authority makes it dependent on the being which has the authority, making it by definition subjective. This sentence is hard to read, I'm not certain I understand it correctly. If morals are subjective, then the mortal creature's morality doesn't need to be better, as much as it simply needs to be present in that mortal creature.
Actually there is no other option; but thanks for illustrating the extravagance of the imbecilities one must eventually resort to if one insists on being an apologist for subjective morality.
Sorry, all i see regarding morality, is, 'evolution did it!', which is simplistic, but accurate, if this is your claim for the source of morality. But i see a clear delineation between animal instinct and human morality. Humans have animal instincts, but they conflict, at times, with morality. Instinct might urge you to steal something, hurt someone, or cheat on your wife. Morality restrains the animal instinct. That is why people do what is 'right', even when nobody would know. There are no environmental pressures that could instill this sense of morality. Those only affirm the instincts. It remains EITHER, Instilled by God, OR Contrived by man Merely asserting, 'evolution did it!', without any evidence or reasoning to explain the observational opposite, dodges the problem.
Actually there is. But given that you don't believe in arguing your points, I guess I'm just going to have to assume that I'm right and you're wrong, just like you do. Have a nice day.
Politics are a human construct. Are they not real? Comedy is a human construct. Is it not real? 90% of stories out there are human constructs. Are they not real? You are making a false dichotomy by claiming that just because something is a human construct that it isn't real.
Morality is not politics. Eye/hand dominance is not morality, but a genetic trait. That actually is, 'embedded', so your irrational deflection fails, anyway. Irrationality and desperation spring from delusion, perhaps, but they are not moral values, either. ..but people do that all the time. The Big Question is not the origin of politics.. or the origin of eye/hand dominance. Morality. Is it a Real Thing, or a human fantasy? AKA, a delusion? Deflecting with irrelevancies only strengthens the argument that 'delusion!' is a common thing among humans, and reason cannot fix it.
Eye/hand dominance is not genetic. It’s a learned trait. Same as politics. Same as morality. All of them are real even if they aren’t imbedded. Do you not get that something can be “real” without he tangible or existing independently of humans? Just because a belief is irrational or incorrect does not make it a delusion. Delusions are defined by psychology/psychiatry and nothing you have claimed to be delusions would fit their definitions. Even you acknowledge this which is why in your intellectual bankruptcy, you have chosen to cherrry pick definitions arbitrarily rather than admit to being wrong.
There is no big “M” Morality. There are lots of various moralities. Morality isn’t some universal absolute. It is subjective and dependent on which human culture you are part of. I’ve asked you multiple times to present examples of absolute morality and you have refused to even attempt to refute when I destroyed the examples you gave. For example, you claimed lying and fraud were examples of absolute moral wrongs in all of humanity. But you refused to answer my counter-question when I asked if Oskar Schindler was being immoral when he lied and fabricated paperwork to save Jews from the Nazis. You claimed that theft is a universal wrong, but then said nothing when I asked if it is immoral for society to steal from people in the form of taxes.
I don't see how your suggested difference delineates morals from instincts. Instinct can conflict with instinct (for instance, my instinct to eat food can conflict with my instinct of not wanting to eat mouldy things), so the fact that morality can conflict with instinct does not mean that morality isn't an instinct. I have provided at least three examples of evolutionary pressures which favour morality. I haven't asserted that evolution did it. I have pointed out that if we consider an evolutionary morality, it highlights the difference between a whimsical and a subjective morality (by being one and not the other).
..IOW, 'evolution did it!' But morality is not instinct, and to blur them removes the conceptual distinction needed for language and communication. Instincts and morality have different definitions, and are opposed, at times. To blur them is to corrupt the language. Either morality is a Real Thing, or it is a human construct. It is not the same as instinct. Those distinctions are covered in more detail here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/morality-instinct-law.551932/
Not necessarily. I'm just making the argument that the evolutionary example is not a logical impossibility, which means we can use it as a thought example to see the difference between a whimsical and a subjective morality. Whether evolution is the actual source of morality is a red herring in this case. The examples of evolutionary pressures I provided because you asked. Well, you need to show me what that conceptual difference is first. If morality is a subset of instinct, that's no more problematic for the language than apples being a subset of fruit is. That seems like a false dichotomy to me. They're not, really, they're just reiterated.
I still see 'subjective morality' as an oxymoron. If it is 'subjective', then it is whatever you want. It is arbitrary, whimsical, or fickle. It is not a Real Thing, but a made up human construct. IOW, it is a delusion or imagination. For 'morality' to be a Real Thing, something or Someone had to put it in man, as a Standard of behavior.. a conscience to guide the decisions we make. Our thoughts, words, and actions would be subject to this embedded 'sense', if it were Real. So the question of morality, as EITHER a Real Thing, or a human construct, comes down to the nature of the universe. God ordered: Morality is possibly embedded in man, as a guide. Godless: No morality possible, only human platitudes for manipulation. I cannot see any logical sequence for morality otherwise. If it is Real, then God put it there. If it is not real, then man makes it up, for expediency.
They are not deflections, they are setting up arguments. Questerr wasn't ignoring the question of morality, he was giving a thought example for which your logic doesn't work, thereby showing that your logic is incorrect or at least incomplete. It seems to me you're second guessing where Questerr's question was going incorrectly. If you stop assuming you understand the arguments and answer the questions instead, the actual arguments are going to come out, and they won't be deflections.
