| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 11:20:06 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I know you pride yourself in your debating skills, and we all know that's not one of my stronger suits, but you have kind of just shown us all that you certainly don't have any sense of decorum and respect for others' beliefs. That's okay in the context of the intellectual discussion I suppose, but you've really been the only one who has really run roughshod over eneryone else in regards to their core beliefs, or their choice to have none as regards to your standards. |
Listen. If we weren't in a forum called "Rant" we wouldn't be having this conversation. You and I could go out and shoot some pictures or have a beer or something. This is the risk you face when you wade in here. I've seen you rail against other views and beliefs and I think it's your right. I did warn you that I might challenge you if you listed your views. I know you did it with a good heart and I appreicate that. It doesn't protect you, however, from the challenging you find in Rant. I've opened myself up before in other Rant threads at other times and I got the same pushing back as well. My challenging you doesn't make me think you are an idiot. Outside this forum you are NikonJeb, photographer. Inside this forum you are NikonJeb, Ranter.
So I don't mean to attack you personally (that is, I'm not attacking JEB), but I have never understood worldviews in the mindset of UU. I did learn something, namely you don't likely believe in an afterlife. That actually helps me understand you and you'll find most of my points fell away with that understanding.
Anyway, we can stop if you wish. I also want to say I'm far, far, far from trying to "convert" you to a specific brand of thinking (ie. Christianity), I was more just prodding you to think your own view through. Where you go from there is up to you. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:24:05 AM · #202 |
Slippery as always Shannon. ;) Do, again, let's try to keep out theology. I just want to argue evolution and morality. Let me ask a few more questions.
1) You didn't mention why you do not think "Self-Preservation" is a basic block of morality. Why not?
2) You did mention that decency and honesty are basic building blocks. How are these described evolutionarily and how would we expect to view these traits in other species? (or do we?) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:50:53 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I wish you all the best, with all my heart, but I am done having you pick at me after trying to openly and honestly tell you about myself after you asked. |
This seems like a good time to bring something up.
This is in regards to your skills as an arguer and your general behaviour in conversations with people who decide to take up any of your points. In the interest of disclosure, I should admit that I don't read your posts unless something of interest catches my eye in others' replies to you, or unless you've made a succinct reply to one of my posts.
Your reply to Jason is typical of the way you carry on conversations, though I must say it is infinitely more restrained than other of your posts. I assume it's because you hold him in higher regard than others. He has said nothing that is not fair, that was not a legitimate challenge to your open invitation to converse with him, and that was not completely on point. What reason do you have for personalizing his position so thoroughly? If you didn't want to open yourself up, then, quite simply, you shouldn't have.
Your style of argument goes something like this: you weigh in on an issue with an opinion, usually using personal anecdote to support you; you parry for a while, as the tension in your writing style noticeably tightens irrespective of how the other person is conducting their argument (so long as they remain in opposition to your point); something is said on the other side that is more often than not completely innocuous and wholly acceptable within the scope of the argument; you erupt in a spate of insulting and belittling ad hominems not worthy of an adult conversation, sometimes with the lowest of language.
In fact, you seem completely incapable of conducting an exchange of ideas without repeating this pattern time and time again. It makes you a worthless partner in conversation.
Notice how I've given this opinion about my observations of your debating style, stark as it is, without calling you any names, or venturing into any areas of your personal life, your character, your loved ones, or anything other than the concretely identifiable facts about how you present yourself to other people. This is something you seem singularly bad at doing. You are not above calling people vile names, using the word "ignorant" in relation to others when it is wholly inappropriate, dragging loved ones into the conversation for shock value, and other tasteless things.
I really feel I must bring this up, even after endeavouring for a very long time not to engage you, because you are a constant participant in these conversations, you're taking up people's time with your participation, and you seem to make the same mistakes over and over again with virtually everyone who has ever expressed an opinion differing from yours.
If you wish to continue debating, I would welcome it. But I would never engage you so long as you make these basic but egregious errors in debating.
There are good attacks and bad attacks. My advice to you would be to completely dissociate yourself from your attacks. You may discover that they become more intelligible and less offensive, that personal anecdote is not necessary to carry the argument, and that your blood pressure drops considerably. If you continue the way you're going, I really think fewer and fewer people will engage you in Rant. This might be a good or bad thing, depending on what you want. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:42:05 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) You didn't mention why you do not think "Self-Preservation" is a basic block of morality. Why not? |
Does anyone claim a situation is immoral because they want to live? No, they appeal to compassion, human decency and so on. EVERY animal (perhaps even plants) exhibit a survival instinct. They actively try to improve their circumstances and avoid pain and death, so unless you're attempting to attribute morals to an amoeba or elm tree, I don't think you want to go there.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) You did mention that decency and honesty are basic building blocks. How are these described evolutionarily and how would we expect to view these traits in other species? (or do we?) |
I've already posted repeatedly that decency, honestly and other characteristics of morality are necessary for higher social animals. There can be no cooperation or teamwork if you don't trust your companions to do the right thing, so social structures could not evolve without an accompanying sense of morality. I've already given plenty of examples with animals, and while your argument style is to try and separate everything into neat little independent compartments, I think honesty, compassion, justice, empathy and their cousins all probably fall under a larger umbrella of recognizing that others have feelings, too (the Golden Rule on steroids).
Essentially, "it's not right" always boils down to the idea that you wouldn't want to be treated the same way. This principle works the other way, too... humans justify behavior or treatment they wouldn't apply to themselves by disassociating themselves from the target group or person. We treat "ourselves" well, but not necessarily "THEM." Whether it's slaves, the other sex, another religious group, a rival tribe or company, gays or whatever, we don't extend the same feelings of empathy because "they" could never be "us." That's the justification we use for overriding innate morality.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 13:43:09. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:37:54 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It makes you a worthless partner in conversation. |
You've done a fine job of belittling me in the utmost of politically correct and non-adversarial ways.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 15:54:38.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:30:42 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Does anyone claim a situation is immoral because they want to live? No, they appeal to compassion, human decency and so on. EVERY animal (perhaps even plants) exhibit a survival instinct. They actively try to improve their circumstances and avoid pain and death, so unless you're attempting to attribute morals to an amoeba or elm tree, I don't think you want to go there. |
In most cultures suicide is considered morally wrong unless another moral imperative compels it. Suicide is also easily separable from "murder". It isn't viewed as being wrong because you are killing someone (although that may play a part), it's wrong for other reasons as well.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) You did mention that decency and honesty are basic building blocks. How are these described evolutionarily and how would we expect to view these traits in other species? (or do we?) |
Originally posted by shannon:
I've already posted repeatedly that decency, honestly and other characteristics of morality are necessary for higher social animals. |
OK, my direct question was are there higher social animals other than man that display "decency" and "honesty". I don't even know what "honesty" would look like in a dolphin or an ape. The same with "decency". You directly name these as "basic building blocks" (actually you said "clocks" ;)) and you like to often bring up that animals other than man exhibit moral behavior, but I don't see a connect here. I can't see animals being "decent" (perhaps for the fuzziness of the definition) and I certainly can't see animals being "honest" (because they can't talk). I'm trying to point out that you like to make broad statements and let the reader fill in for themselves all the incorrect details. You then aren't held accountable for it if someone (like myself) calls you on it, but you get away with planting the seed in your opponent's mind. You like to say morality isn't rooted in religious texts because monkeys and dogs exhibit morality. You point to a building block like "fairness" which may truly be represented in other species, but then allow us to assume there is evidence for all the other blocks you list like "decency" and "honesty" and now you are denying other genetic urges such as "self-preservation" should count toward morality arbitrarily because you don't want them to. Going from "basic blocks" (for which so far you've exhibited evidence for...what one or two?) to "morality" is a long stretch.
I'm just calling out your repeated use of animals and morality to discount arguments that arise because I think the argument is thin like gossamer.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 16:31:31. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:42:28 PM · #207 |
Not to get off the topic (ie answer the post above), but it's interesting when you seek out the articles themselves instead of the laypress versions of the articles that they don't seem nearly as strong. Within the very same Nature journal the article about the capuchin monkeys showing fairness was presented is dissent. A comment on the article states:
Brosnan and de Waal report that capuchin monkeys show evidence of a sense of fairness or 'inequity aversion' because they rejected a less preferred reward when they saw a partner monkey receive a preferred reward for the same task. However, this does not show that monkeys are averse to inequity, only that they reject a lesser reward when better rewards are available. There are risks inherent in seeking anthropomorphic explanations for non-human behaviour.
Also, I found in my search a more recent Nature article that says chimps, a much closer relative, don't seem to care much for non-family members. (Title: Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members.)
Suddenly Shannon's stark assertion that animals are moral looks to be on shakier ground.
(But again, before you respond to this post, respond to the one above).
EDIT: I was incorrect in saying the dissent was in the same issue, it was given five months after the initial article.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 16:45:40. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:45:50 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. |
So are humans when it comes to "other" tribes, groups, religions, lifestyles, etc. I already said that. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:47:07 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Also, I found in my search a more recent Nature article that says chimps, a much closer relative, don't seem to care much for non-family members. |
That would correlate identically with human behaviour, if you consider the chimp "family" an extended social network, which I think you can. You have in essence supported Shannon's most recent second paragraph. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:47:54 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Does anyone claim a situation is immoral because they want to live? No, they appeal to compassion, human decency and so on. EVERY animal (perhaps even plants) exhibit a survival instinct. They actively try to improve their circumstances and avoid pain and death, so unless you're attempting to attribute morals to an amoeba or elm tree, I don't think you want to go there. |
In most cultures suicide is considered morally wrong unless another moral imperative compels it. Suicide is also easily separable from "murder". It isn't viewed as being wrong because you are killing someone (although that may play a part), it's wrong for other reasons as well.
|
What reasons? Why do you say suicide is morally wrong? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:54:09 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Does anyone claim a situation is immoral because they want to live? No, they appeal to compassion, human decency and so on. EVERY animal (perhaps even plants) exhibit a survival instinct. They actively try to improve their circumstances and avoid pain and death, so unless you're attempting to attribute morals to an amoeba or elm tree, I don't think you want to go there. |
In most cultures suicide is considered morally wrong unless another moral imperative compels it. Suicide is also easily separable from "murder". It isn't viewed as being wrong because you are killing someone (although that may play a part), it's wrong for other reasons as well.
|
What reasons? Why do you say suicide is morally wrong? |
I don't need to say why to make my point (ie. I don't want to get bogged down). I just need to point out suicide is viewed as wrong in many, many cultures. And those where it is viewed as acceptable, it is only viewed as such under special circumstances (eg. loss of honor). |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:54:51 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. |
So are humans when it comes to "other" tribes, groups, religions, lifestyles, etc. I already said that. |
Didn't I tell you to respond to the other post? :P
Here's another letter from Nature...
Brosnan and de Waal1 have shown that capuchin monkeys are more likely to reject a cucumber slice after seeing that another capuchin has received a more attractive grape. In interpreting this finding, the authors make a link to work in humans on 'inequity aversion' and suggest that capuchins, like humans, may reject rewards because they are averse to unequal pay-offs. Here I argue that this interpretation suffers from three problems: the results contradict the predictions of the inequity-aversion model that Bosnan and de Waal cite2; experimental results indicate that humans do not behave like capuchins in similar circumstances; and the available evidence does not suggest that inequity aversion is cross-culturally universal3, 4, 5.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:58:57 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't need to say why to make my point (ie. I don't want to get bogged down). I just need to point out suicide is viewed as wrong in many, many cultures. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm trying to point out that you like to make broad statements and let the reader fill in for themselves all the incorrect details. You then aren't held accountable for it if someone (like myself) calls you on it, but you get away with planting the seed in your opponent's mind. |
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:00:19 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Does anyone claim a situation is immoral because they want to live? No, they appeal to compassion, human decency and so on. EVERY animal (perhaps even plants) exhibit a survival instinct. They actively try to improve their circumstances and avoid pain and death, so unless you're attempting to attribute morals to an amoeba or elm tree, I don't think you want to go there. |
In most cultures suicide is considered morally wrong unless another moral imperative compels it. Suicide is also easily separable from "murder". It isn't viewed as being wrong because you are killing someone (although that may play a part), it's wrong for other reasons as well.
|
What reasons? Why do you say suicide is morally wrong? |
I don't need to say why to make my point (ie. I don't want to get bogged down). I just need to point out suicide is viewed as wrong in many, many cultures. And those where it is viewed as acceptable, it is only viewed as such under special circumstances (eg. loss of honor). |
Because something is culturally wrong/right doesn't also make it morally wrong/right.
In some cultures beating your wife is culturally right, does that make it a moral act? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:05:24 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
this does not show that monkeys are averse to inequity, only that they reject a lesser reward when better rewards are available.[/b] |
Covered: "...they could have been frustrated at being given grapes in previous trials and having to contend with cucumbers.
To rule out these alternative explanations, de Waal and Brosnan tasked graduate student, Megan van Wolkenten with repeating their earlier study with subtle tweaks. Their new results firmly show that monkeys can indeed spot unjust deals and respond with envy and apathy..." |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:06:59 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Because something is culturally wrong/right doesn't also make it morally wrong/right.
In some cultures beating your wife is culturally right, does that make it a moral act? |
Shannon is pointing out that an innate sense of right and wrong has evolved evolutionarily. He points to animals exhibiting these "proto-moral behaviors" (my words). I brought up "self-preservation" as a possible example of one of these building blocks. Shannon said that wasn't right because nobody "claims a situation is immoral because they want to live". I pointed out that, in fact, lots of cultures claim a situation is immoral because people want to die". I'm just placing Self-Preservation correctly in the tool box of "basic building blocks" or "proto-moral behaviors". |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:14:14 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon is pointing out that an innate sense of right and wrong has evolved evolutionarily. He points to animals exhibiting these "proto-moral behaviors" (my words). I brought up "self-preservation" as a possible example of one of these building blocks. Shannon said that wasn't right because nobody "claims a situation is immoral because they want to live". I pointed out that, in fact, lots of cultures claim a situation is immoral because people want to die". I'm just placing Self-Preservation correctly in the tool box of "basic building blocks" or "proto-moral behaviors". |
My statement stands. I've never heard anyone argue that suicide is wrong on the grounds of self-preservation. They do so out of empathy for the family, compassion for the person, and so on. Note that the same grounds are also used to argue for euthanasia. How does THAT fit in with self-preservation? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:30:22 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon is pointing out that an innate sense of right and wrong has evolved evolutionarily. He points to animals exhibiting these "proto-moral behaviors" (my words). I brought up "self-preservation" as a possible example of one of these building blocks. Shannon said that wasn't right because nobody "claims a situation is immoral because they want to live". I pointed out that, in fact, lots of cultures claim a situation is immoral because people want to die". I'm just placing Self-Preservation correctly in the tool box of "basic building blocks" or "proto-moral behaviors". |
My statement stands. I've never heard anyone argue that suicide is wrong on the grounds of self-preservation. They do so out of empathy for the family, compassion for the person, and so on. Note that the same grounds are also used to argue for euthanasia. How does THAT fit in with self-preservation? |
I'm just confused on why you are resistent to "Self-preservation" as being a building block of evolutionary morality. It's obviously the strongest genetic urge we have. Why WOULDN'T evolutionary morality involve this? Are you just arguing for arguing's sake?
You STILL haven't told me what "decency" or "honesty" look outside our species, yet you offered them up as "building blocks". Why must every offering I pose be met with bickering and resistance?
Euthenaisa is not antithetical to self-preservation. It is always presented in a context where death is certain. The method of death is what is argued. You aren't being less self-preserving by wanting an immenent and certain death to be carried out in the manner of your choosing. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:32:11 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
this does not show that monkeys are averse to inequity, only that they reject a lesser reward when better rewards are available.[/b] |
Covered: "...they could have been frustrated at being given grapes in previous trials and having to contend with cucumbers.
To rule out these alternative explanations, de Waal and Brosnan tasked graduate student, Megan van Wolkenten with repeating their earlier study with subtle tweaks. Their new results firmly show that monkeys can indeed spot unjust deals and respond with envy and apathy..." |
I wish I could read the article itself, but it's behind a firewall. Apparently the results are based on the fact that 90% of the time the monkey's did the deal when it was fair and that was reduced to 80% when it wasn't? Are you kidding me? I would hope there were statistics done on that to see if it's even significant. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:40:02 PM · #220 |
| If you google "morality of suicide" you get lots of pages with essays about the topic. Interestingly, most actually argue that suicide is moral in some situations. What I find interesting is there is an obvious feeling that such an argument must be presented. The a priori assumption is we feel Suicide is morally wrong (the authors tend to go on to say, wait, there may be situations where it isn't wrong). The point is we seem to have an innate distaste for suicide and this distate, I believe, is easily argued to be nearly universal (as universal as anything else). From here I make a logical leap to say it is our innate sense of Self-Preservation that gives us this feeling. It's not a large leap and it's a logical one. It's certainly no larger and perhaps much smaller than some of Shannon's leaps ("decency" and "honesty"). So why should it not be included as a building block of morality? "Keeping oneself alive is good." Who would disagree with that in all but the oddest of situations? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:54:07 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So why should it not be included as a building block of morality? "Keeping oneself alive is good." Who would disagree with that in all but the oddest of situations? |
Some cultures certainly would disagree. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:58:35 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So why should it not be included as a building block of morality? "Keeping oneself alive is good." Who would disagree with that in all but the oddest of situations? |
Some cultures certainly would disagree. |
You'll have to give me some examples and then show that the instances, like Japanese Samurai, aren't situations where there are other imperatives (loss of honor) that override this truth. No culture views killing oneself as a simple good. If it is viewed as good, it's always in the context of some other good that is achieved over the evil of killing oneself. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:08:30 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If it is viewed as good, it's always in the context of some other good that is achieved over the evil of killing oneself. |
I don't want to get bogged down with examples. Your argument now appears to be that suicide can be perfectly acceptable as long as you are doing it for the right reasons. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:09:06 PM · #224 |
Why does a fun philosophical debate like this have to take place at the busiest time of the year for a musician like me? The conversation's bound to simmer down by the time my schedule lightens up :( Could it be that God is just punishing me for not believing in him/her? :-\ Well, at least I'm making good money off of all of the churches/orchestras hiring me to play The Messiah and other Christmas pops music (and it's amazing how many atheists I know who play in these church gigs).
Happy debating season you care-free ranters. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:14:50 PM · #225 |
I already explained earlier why self-preservation isn't a basic form of morality, and you should know exactly what decency and honestly look like in animals since that would include humans.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Apparently the results are based on the fact that 90% of the time the monkey's did the deal when it was fair and that was reduced to 80% when it wasn't? Are you kidding me? |
"they only cooperated 80% of the time and as the trials continued, they were more and more likely to refuse."
|
|
