False dichotomy error. The idea that morality can only be "real" if God ordains it is a mistake. Here's a similar example: Beauty. Does beauty exist? Humans are the only species that can appreciate beauty for its own sake, but beauty is somewhat relative. Samoans believe very large people are attractive while mainland Americans (have to specify since Samoans are also Americans) believe slender people are attractive. Did God create beauty or was it an evolutionary advantage? Either way, the fact that standards of beauty vary from place to place doesn't mean that beauty doesn't exist. The same thing goes for morality. Whether God created it or it's an evolutionary advantage, the fact that standards of morality vary from place to place doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. And the short answer to your last question is that very real human beings will punish you severely if you allow your natural instincts to take over in regards to rape and murder, even in a godless universe, which is why you should let deluded human platitudes interfere with your desires and natural instincts.
Well, that was a pointless post. Why did you even bother typing it? Since I didn't suggest teaching a "semblance of morality by means of emotional manipulation" while you DID in fact ask if someone not socialized would never develop a sense of morality. Here is the exchange: There it is in black and white. Or black and light teal. Stop denying you asked the question.
No, what you did was advocate it. Please, the record clearly indicates I did no such thing. Congratulations on the accurate C&P. Obviously I never denied asking that question, which was in response to a comment that didn't say a damn thing about socialization. You're welcome.
I'm sure you're right. Atheists, Muslims, and Buddhists have no libido, at all, and only engage in sex if they personally want a child.. Exactly. Their subhuman condition makes them obviously inferior to the rest of mankind. That would be hypocrisy, not an oxymoron.. the oxymoron is including 'intellectual!', along with 'progressive!'.. something i have rarely observed in the public discourse. I think you have confirmed that perception, here...
No, it is a simple dichotomy. IF.. morality is a Real Thing, THEN.. Something or Someone put it there. IF.. this is a godless universe, THEN, there is no one, or nothing to embed morality, and it is NOT a Real Thing, but a delusion. There is no other possibility, for morality to be a Real Thing. Theft, adultery, or murder are not 'wrong', in an absolute sense, but depend on the desires, needs, convenience, and expedience of the individual.. in a godless universe. Beauty is a great example of subjective opinion. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.." is the perception for most of humanity. There is no overriding sense of 'beauty!' in humans, as your example indicated. Just because there are SOME things that are subjective, cultural, or temporal mores, does not mean that ALL are. There are a handful of common moral values, that humans share. And, there are a lot of subjective ones, that vary with culture, era, and region. The standards of dress for women are much different in modern Mecca, than in 1700s tribal Africa, or polynesia. But they all have the core values, common to man. The question is, 'Are they Real? Or just a human delusion?' Human Law is real. It is fickle, changing, and does not always reflect the core values, but it is a real thing, and violations have consequences. Instinct is real, as a biological programming to enhance the survival of the species. But morality USUALLY conflicts with our insticts. Morality is the rational choosing of an inner 'sense' or 'conscience', and usually conflicts with our instinctive urges, and elicits a reasoned response, based on a 'sense' of 'right and wrong'. We don't just take things, even if we can with no negative consequences. Nor do we murder, commit adultery, or break other matters of conscience. Some do, at times, and all of society is morally indignant that the core human values have been violated. Laws are passed, and justice meted out, all because of this belief in an inner sense of morality. What other possibilities could there be, for the question of morality, as a Real Thing? If it is Real, then it must have a source. If it is a human construct then it is not real, but a delusion.
That is also an instinctive response, to refrain from an act, for fear of retribution. Stealing is ok, among animals. ..but only if you can get away with it. If a bigger dog has a bone, you might not be able to steal it, without getting bit. But if YOU are the 'Big Dog', you can take whatever you want, and nobody will object with moral outrage. You might sneak in and bang a few cows, but not if the alpha bull catches you. A male lion, or a rogue chimp can (and will) kill some kids, in the society, but not if the mothers are watching. Justice is an individual matter, with pure instincts, and only humans have exhibited a social morality, that Law is based on. Animals only have jungle law. If you are strong enough, or can get away with it, anything goes, in the jungle. Instinct, morality, and Law are interrelated, but are different things, in the human experiece. Only morality has an unseen, intangible source, that depends on Something or Someone to put it there.
The last sentence in your post here is a false claim. In social species, which includes humans, cooperation with other pack/herd/clan members is necessary for survival and theft, murder, and exploitation are directly opposed to that cooperation and therefore detrimental to survival.
“Right and wrong” and “Good and bad” are totally subjective concepts. You have yet to demonstrated a single universal example of any of them.
"There is nothing inherently 'wrong!' about murder, or theft, or exploiting anyone.. there are only human laws for those things, passed to manipulate people." It is power, not morality, that forces any semblance of 'cooperation!' The youger males submit to the alpha male from fear, not moral respect. The law of the jungle is not 'morality!' It is instinct, only, and any social order is achieved through strength. No 'higher law' is appealed to, in animal societies. Humans do this. Is it because there IS, an absolute 'moral sense', or is it because of delusion?
You should really watch the video I posted that goes into great detail about alpha behavior in primates. No, it is not just about strength and fear and strength is definitely, definitely not all there is to social order in such animals. I'm sorry, but nearly everything you've said in this thread about social animals has been completely wrong. This video I provided is by the guy who originally popularized the term "alpha male" in the first place, and who is the foremost researcher in alpha behavior. He started with a notion like yours when he was studying wolves in captivity. Researching wolves in the wild, however, and researching primates both in the wild and in captivity, he realized he was wrong and has made it his life work to correct misconceptions like this. The alpha isn't always the strongest male; among chimps, it rarely is, in fact. Hell, depending on the species, the alpha isn't always even male at all, much less the strongest one.
Give me a list of what you believe are 'right!' and 'wrong!' There may be some cultural mores, or religious Indoctrination, but there is also a core group that are universally respected as 'morality', in the human animal. Skirt length might be an issue for some, but theft is universally condemned.
You accused the same thing in another thread, with the same topic: You certainly can dismiss my arguments, but it is a false accusation to say i have not addressed them.
If murder is universally, absolutely wrong, then why does the Bible justify Israelites murdering unarmed women and children? As for theft, "Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving." Assault? Again, the Bible sometimes defends it. Lying? Very, very few people say that it is always wrong to lie; just about everyone but Kant believes it is okay to lie in order to save someone's life, for example.
“Give me a list of what you believe...” Right there you acknowledge that morality is subjective and not universal. Theft is “universally condemned”? What about when a society steals money from people in order to have an army to defend that society? Is that theft “universally condemned”?
it don't count when they do it, very similar to the dems sexual abuse of women, it only matters if someone else does it
Anthropomorphic Projection People, you may have noticed, have a seemingly inexhaustible propensity to project human characteristics onto objects around them that aren't human. It almost goes without saying that we anthropomorphize animals, especially pets such as cats and dogs and any baby creatures that look in the slightest bit cute. We also anthropomorphize creatures with which the empathic link seems much more tenuous or even nonexistent. Insects are a good example. We endow these arthropods with personalities far beyond the capabilities of their few brain cells - you won't be alone if you've thought that ladybirds are friendly, adorable little things while cockroaches are creatures that have just crawled up from the domain of Hades. When we project a personality onto an animal we take for granted the fact that we are bestowing the creature with a degree of mental capability or consciousness from which this personality can arise. Source
Murder is universally wrong? So was it wrong when the Israelites murdered the population of Canaan? Theft is universally wrong? So when a society steals from people to fund courts and defense forces that is wrong? Assault is universally wrong? So when Trump tells his supporters to “knock the hell” out of protesters, he gets universally condemned yes? Lying and fraud are universally wrong? So when Schindler lies and fabricated documents to save the lives of Jews he was actually being evil?
I can only present reasoning. I cannot make anyone understand. Deflections, straw men, and diversions away from my points reveal anti-reason, that dominates the New! Progressive! culture.
Refer to evidence previously provided and ignored. Empathetic responses with the same physiological, hormonal, neurological, and behavior characteristics as ours are well-documented among social animals. Whether the subjective experience is exactly like ours, which is what this article gets at, doesn't matter. Animal consciousness is also well supported by evidence. The subjective experience of it is may not be exactly like ours but, once again, that doesn't matter. That was never the argument. And, once again, you are using the exact same argument you've called fallacious. You have a whole thread dedicated to the fact that this style of argument is invalid . . . and here you are using it.
You've been provided with reasoning that challenges your position, and much of it has gone unaddressed. And trying to make this about a monolithic political force that you've invented is probably the biggest deflection, straw man, diversion, and element of "anti-reason" in this thread.
And I prefer beliefs that are supported by evidence, rather than blind faith that asks me to ignore the available evidence because it proves problematic for some kind of religious presumption. Meanwhile your entire objection is based on a line of reasoning that you've already publicly admitted to be invalid. I have experimental evidence that some animals have some level conscious awareness (whether or not it is exactly like ours, aka anthropomorphism, I have no idea and it doesn't matter as that is not my claim). I have no evidence supporting your claims.
