“Deride it if you like, but you asked where a sense of morality comes from, if not from faith.”

I did not mean to offend. Actually I asked “Morals and ethics are based on the assumption that humans have value. From where would that value come?”

Spit said
“I didn’t say that morality was universal, or that all who base their actions on a sense of self and empathy with others would make the same choices.”

OK

“All I said was that a sense of self and a sense of empathy serve as a source for morality at least as well as an ancient book.”

No, you said
“Perhaps from an intrinsic sense of self and an empathy and sense of shared experience with those around us?”Comment by spit take — July 9, 2007 @ 3:44 pm

I don’t know where the hell you got that “feelings determine truth” crap. I said nothing about truth. ”

We’re discussing human value and morals if it is not moral truth then what is it? You argued that perhaps these stemmed “from an intrinsic sense of self and an empathy and sense of shared experience with those around us?”

Intrinsic senses and empathy are feelings.

“Again, you asked a question, which may have been rhetorical, but I took to be serious: “where does morality come from if not from faith”.” (again these are not my words)

“I offered an answer. Dismissing it as “silly sentimentalism” doesn’t really address it. ”

My answer went beyond that. But I will repeat in different words. Intrinsic senses and empathy do not translate into objective human value or moral absolutes.

“By your argument, the fact that not all faith-based moralities are identical argues against THAT source just as well as it argues against what I suggested.”

I am sorry but it does not follow logically that because people have different ideas of god or that people follow god badly that god therefore is a poor source of truth.

I don’t know why a theological text is necessary to develop a sense of community and right and wrong.”

Theological texts are not necessary to develop a sense (aka feeling or belief) of community or of right and wrong. But remember feeling does not make it so.

That is in regards to mathematics.

“The self, like the tribe, the village, the nation, the species, etc., is an extension of the gene. You’re putting the cart before the horse.”

“Your genes have no interest in the preservation of your self. They are only “interested” in propagating more genes.”

If that organism which we refer to as the self ceases to exist the gene can no longer propogate. It is in our genetic make up to survive, primarily for this purpose.

In the case of humans the gene does not need nations or tribes necessarily. Ultimately it needs only one other of the species to achieve propogation.

“While that may be the opinion of the self, it is not the reason social groups are biologically advantageous. It all goes back to the propagation of the gene, which is paramount.”

Yes but the existence moral truth, or absolutes does not follow from the fact that social groups may be advantgeous.

I believe that is the law of the “excluded middle.”

Comment by SGT Higgins — July 9, 2007 @ 4:50 pm

SGT

The statement
“It is true absolutely there are no absolutes.”

Is a contradiction. In order for it to be true you must admit that at least one absolute exists.

I hope you fugured out what that one truth is.
So of coarse I agree there are absolutes.

I should in the context have said “there is one objective moral truth, that there are no objective moral truths”

It admits that indeed objective moral truth exists. Objective moral truth cannot exist if god does not. Therfore……..

Now you are no closer to your answer.

Comment by Crump’s Brother — July 9, 2007 @ 4:47 pm

Another brain teaser here to reply
The theory of relativity states “A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same manner”.

Comment by shane — July 9, 2007 @ 4:57 pm

—————————————————————————————-

Shane, you need to stop talking out of your butt, buddy!!!

Comment by SGT Higgins

Hey Sarge, arguing with the Troll. You are so busted. Admit it, you’re starting to like progressives, aren’t you?

Comment by Mr. President

Fellow TPers since the jury is out how about a vote. Is Mr. P talking to his butt buddy or talking to himself.

I vote that he’s talking to his butt buddy. Anybody else.

Thank you for your projection.

Comment by CT_V1

CT, the twit homeschooled by his mommy with the 80 IQ while she was chugging cheap vodka and smoking cigarettes while feeding her baby boy lead paint chips and catfish loaded with mercury hates anybody who got a real education.

The gene or DNA is an extention of the self. Yes

No.

The self, like the tribe, the village, the nation, the species, etc., is an extension of the gene. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

Your genes have no interest in the preservation of your self. They are only “interested” in propagating more genes.

My logic is not flawed the individual cooporates with the collective for the preservtion of the self.

While that may be the opinion of the self, it is not the reason social groups are biologically advantageous. It all goes back to the propagation of the gene, which is paramount.

What you are describing here is silly sentimentalism. What if someone or a group of someones feels otherwise? They cannot be wrong for it is their feeling. Feelings then determine truth which is about as rational as you seem to think faith is. (actully they are very much the same)

Comment by Troll — July 9, 2007 @ 4:08 pm

Deride it if you like, but you asked where a sense of morality comes from, if not from faith.

I didn’t say that morality was universal, or that all who base their actions on a sense of self and empathy with others would make the same choices.

All I said was that a sense of self and a sense of empathy serve as a source for morality at least as well as an ancient book.

By your argument, the fact that not all faith-based moralities are identical argues against THAT source just as well as it argues against what I suggested.

I don’t know where the hell you got that “feelings determine truth” crap. I said nothing about truth. Again, you asked a question, which may have been rhetorical, but I took to be serious: “where does morality come from if not from faith”. I offered an answer. Dismissing it as “silly sentimentalism” doesn’t really address it.

I don’t know why a theological text is necessary to develop a sense of community and right and wrong.

Comment by Troll

Of course there are ‘absolutes’.

Want an example?

Whether you believe in it, or not…..whether you acknowledge it’s existence is immaterial……9 IS the square root of 81. You can argue that YOU believe the square of 9 is orange….but you’d be wrong. Then again, I bet you’re accustomed to that.

You can say that it wasn’t immoral. But I might say that it is, and in the end, with the knowledge we now have, we would both be correct and wrong.

Now you are no closer to your answer.