Deep Sight:

I see you are only ready to make unfounded statements and not ready to actually reason through anything or proffer an actual argument.

That is only to be expected, of course.

Which of my statements were unfounded? You're welcome to begin your clarification by telling me who you think would qualify as a "strict moral evolutionist".

thehomer:

Which of my statements were unfounded?

All of them.

See how easy it is to just declare?

You're welcome to begin your clarification by telling me who you think would qualify as a "strict moral evolutionist".

Mr. Troll and wiegraf have expressed positions here on this thread that disclose them to be such.

I have coined that term with reference to them; people who deny the existence of an objective morality and believe morality to be wholly subjective having evolved STRICTLY AND ONLY as described in the OP, and having no objective source or inherent nature.

Deep Sight:

All of them.

See how easy it is to just declare?

That wasn't a declaration, it was a question. If you were serious, you would have actually quoted the ones you thought were unfounded.

Deep Sight:
Mr. Troll and wiegraf have expressed positions here on this thread that disclose them to be such.

I have coined that term with reference to them; people who deny the existence of an objective morality and believe morality to be wholly subjective having evolved STRICTLY AND ONLY as described in the OP, and having no objective source or inherent nature.

Then you don't understand what you read in the OP or even what the OP was about. The OP talks about how morality evolved. It doesn't follow from the OP that it is moral to:

Deep Sight:
EXTERMINATE, EXPLOIT AND ENSLAVE THE WEAKER AND INFERIOR ONES AMONG US FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF MANKIND, SO ONLY STRONGER AND SUPERIOR GENES WILL SURVIVE AND THEREBY MAKE HUMANITY STRONGER AND BETTER CONTINUOUSLY.

Until you understand your basic confusion, you'll remain stuck with attacking strawmen. Saying that morality evolved isn't the same as saying that moral reasoning is entirely based on the theory of evolution.

Mr Troll said:

Mr Troll:
What is morality? I will paraphrase Robert Green Ingersoll: “Morality is doing the best under the circumstance. What is the best? The sum of what will increase human happiness or at least reduce human suffering.”

You keep talking about some actions being intrinsically wrong. How do you determine whether or not an action is intrinsically wrong?

^^^ Please don't get confused so early in your involvement. We understand the OP when he talks about morality evolving and we know very well that that is not a Theory of Evolution issue.

When I speak of the implications of the theory of evolution vis-a-viz morality, I do so to show those who think that all that we are is derived from evolution, that they are wrong. If that were the case, and if that were to hold true and consistent, they should subscribe to significantly different moral paradigms, and be willing to do humanity great genetic and evolutionary favours by exterminating weak genes. That is a point wholly different from the argument on moral subjectivity which has been the main issue on this thread. It is a point I simply thought to draw the attention of our evolutionists to, for their consideration - on the matter of subjectivity! They need to wonder why it should be wrong for a Hitler to think that way, for example.

If indeed we are a product only of evolution, please can you tell me if there was anything wrong with the viewpoint of those who sought superior genetic progression by eliminating the weak and inferior?

And if you say there was something morally wrong with such: then please tell on what basis you say so - remembering of course, that the OP and his cohorts declare all morality to be subjective.

Thank you.

Maybe, in addition to the above, before anything else, you should also answer the question as to whether such things as Mala in se exist or not.

Be mindful of the implications of your answer, and also address these questions ->

- - - > If ALL morality is subjective, then - - - >

1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

Thank you.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Please don't get confused so early in your involvement. We understand the OP when he talks about morality evolving and we know very well that that is not a Theory of Evolution issue.

If you understand that, then why do you keep saying "killing the weak" should be moral?

Deep Sight:
When I speak of the implications of the theory of evolution vis-a-viz morality, I do so to show those who think that all that we are is derived from evolution, that they are wrong. If that were the case, and if that were to hold true and consistent, they should subscribe to significantly different moral paradigms, and be willing to do humanity great genetic and evolutionary favours by exterminating weak genes. That is a point wholly different from the argument on moral subjectivity which has been the main issue on this thread. It is a point I simply thought to draw the attention of our evolutionists to, for their consideration - on the matter of subjectivity! They need to wonder why it should be wrong for a Hitler to think that way, for example.

Though your phrasing is clumsy, I will say yes, we are products of evolution.

How does the fact that we are products of evolution mean that it must be morally right to kill people you think are weak? You keep committing the same error in thinking that I've pointed out over and over again.

Deep Sight:
If indeed we are a product only of evolution, please can you tell me if there was anything wrong with the viewpoint of those who sought superior genetic progression by eliminating the weak and inferior?

What is wrong with your statement is that moral reasoning isn't based on the theory of evolution.

Deep Sight:
And if you say there was something morally wrong with such: then please tell on what basis you say so - remembering of course, that the OP and his cohorts declare all morality to be subjective.

Thank you.

On the basis of carrying out moral reasoning.

Do you think there is something morally wrong with your statement? If you think there is, can you tell me the basis?

Deep Sight:
Maybe, in addition to the above, before anything else, you should also answer the question as to whether such things as Mala in se exist or not.

They are ideas. They exist in the same way other ideas exist.

Deep Sight:
Be mindful of the implications of your answer, and also address these questions ->

- - - > If ALL morality is subjective, then - - - >

Maybe you need to first think through what you mean by subjective. In what sense do you think morality is objective? Is it objective in the sense that two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make one molecule of water?

Deep Sight:
1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

On the basis of moral reasoning.

Deep Sight:
2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

Thank you.

On the basis of moral reasoning and principles of justice.

Now, you answer your own two questions above.

You see?

That up there is wrong circular reasoning.

When you are asked these questions -

- - - > If ALL morality is subjective, then - - - >

1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made

You cannot answer: saying - "on the basis of moral reasoning" - - - ! ! !

That is the most horridly circular answer I have ever seen in my life.

Of course the question is WHAT your moral reasoning is based on.

So please get serious and answer properly.

For the question said - "If all morality is subjective, then on what basis. . . "

And you revert saying - "On the basis of moral reasoning" . . . ! ! !

Reboot.

Deep Sight:
You see?

That up there is wrong circular reasoning.

When you are asked these questions -



You cannot answer: saying - "on the basis of moral reasoning" - - - ! ! !

That is the most horridly circular answer I have ever seen in my life.

How is it circular reasoning?

Deep Sight:
Of course the question is WHAT your moral reasoning is based on.

So please get serious and answer properly.

For the question said - "If all morality is subjective, then on what basis. . . "

And you revert saying - "On the basis of moral reasoning" . . . ! ! !

Reboot.

My moral reasoning is based on my values.

I see that you're once again making a lot of noise. For some reason, you didn't answer your own questions. Why don't you do that in your next response? To jog your memory, here they are again.

Deep Sight:
1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

Please don't forget to answer them again.

thehomer:

How is it circular reasoning?



My moral reasoning is based on my values.

I see that you're once again making a lot of noise. For some reason, you didn't answer your own questions. Why don't you do that in your next response? To jog your memory, here they are again.



Please don't forget to answer them again.

Please speak straight to the question. You are merely pushing the goal post further away.

What are your values based on and are they objective or subjective. This question will go to the root of what is being debated on this thread and show you the real issue, and also show you why your posts are off point non starters.

Deep Sight:

Please speak straight to the question. You are merely pushing the goal post further away.

What are your values based on and are they objective or subjective. This question will go to the root of what is being debated on this thread and show you the real issue, and also show you why your posts are off point non starters.

Please answer these questions you posed. Don't ignore them.

Deep Sight:
1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

When you've answered them, the way you expect me to answer, then I'll answer your new set of questions.

^^^ If you want a serious discussion, then please be serious. I don't have the energy for pages of meaningless back and forth where discussants deliberately strive to misunderstand simple issues.

This here - - ->

thehomer:
then I'll answer your new set of questions.

- Is most annoying. Those are not a "new set of questions." You never answered the first question at all - and that up there was only a clarification that you never answered those questions at all. I made that clear by saying. You are asked what morals are based on and you say values. That says nothing. If someone else was asked what values are based on, he could equally flip it around, and say they are based on morals. You have answered nothing at all. You just introduced a replacement word for your morals.

If you cannot go back and answer the question, then just forget it, its not worth the bother.

As to my questions, I have addressed them over and over within the thread (and you claim to have read the thread). I said that such (judging x or y as wrong/ the existence of criminal laws) is only tenable because of the existence of objective morality based on the existence of such things as mala in se. The discussants on the opposite side of the table say that there is not, and that all morality is subjective. If that is true, then the basis for criminal laws still begs for an answer.

Deep Sight:
^^^ If you want a serious discussion, then please be serious. I don't have the energy for pages of meaningless back and forth where discussants deliberately strive to misunderstand simple issues.

I'm always ready for a serious discussion. I just won't abide irrelevant distractions.

Deep Sight:
This here - - ->


- Is most annoying. Those are not a "new set of questions." You never answered the first question at all - and that up there was only a clarification that you never answered those questions at all. I made that clear by saying. You are asked what morals are based on and you say values. That says nothing. If someone else was asked what values are based on, he could equally flip it around, and say they are based on morals. You have answered nothing at all. You just introduced a replacement word for your morals.

I did answer your question. You asked what I based my morals on, I told you I based them on my values. No you can't flip it around. Your values are a basis not a derivative. It isn't a replacement. Follow that link for more understanding of what I mean.

Deep Sight:
If you cannot go back and answer the question, then just forget it, its not worth the bother.

I have answered it but you just don't like it. You would have been better off referring your next question to what my values are keeping in mind what your own values are as you ask that question because I may just ask you the same.

Deep Sight:
As to my questions, I have addressed them over and over within the thread (and you claim to have read the thread). I said that such (judging x or y as wrong/ the existence of criminal laws) is only tenable because of the existence of objective morality based on the existence of such things as mala in se. The discussants on the opposite side of the table say that there is not, and that all morality is subjective. If that is true, then the basis for criminal laws still begs for an answer.

What you've said above is devoid of meaning. The Latin phrase mala in se means "evil in itself". Saying the existence of objective morality is based on the existence of "evil in itself" is empty. What is "evil in itself"? Is it an idea, a process, an action or something else? Does it have anything at all to do with your own values or with human beings?

Our shared values are also the basis of criminal laws. Talking about whether it is objective or not may not be applicable until you clarify what our shared values are and once you're talking about that, you'll need to realize that the sort of objectivity under consideration isn't the type of objectivity that applies to mathematical truths.

I'm always here whenever you're open to expanding your mind.

I just looked at your link, and it is obvious you are not ready to discuss anything. There is nothing there that discloses anything meaningful in terms of this discussion.

Deep Sight:
I just looked at your link, and it is obvious you are not ready to discuss anything. There is nothing there that discloses anything meaningful in terms of this discussion.

And he runs away as usual. What do you think the purpose of the link was?

When the going gets tough, run.

thehomer:

They are ideas. They exist in the same way other ideas exist.



Maybe you need to first think through what you mean by subjective. In what sense do you think morality is objective? Is it objective in the sense that two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make one molecule of water?



On the basis of moral reasoning.



On the basis of moral reasoning and principles of justice.

Now, you answer your own two questions above.

habah! oga this is no answer abeg.

thehomer:

Please answer these questions you posed. Don't ignore them.



When you've answered them, the way you expect me to answer, then I'll answer your new set of questions.

let me honestly say that you dont seem to understand ... I don't want to be specific, so that you don't see that as an insult.

JMAN05:

habah! oga this is no answer abeg.

How does it not answer the questions?

JMAN05:

let me honestly say that you dont seem to understand ... I don't want to be specific, so that you don't see that as an insult.

I'll say that you actually don't understand anything I've said so far. You're welcome to say what has you confused.

I am not here to debate with you, I was just reading the posts here when I saw your reply, it shows you either did not understand where DP is coming from or that his words were too hard for you to comprehend. If you go through that question, and that is the answer you think suits it, then I dont think discussing with you will make sense 'cos you no doubt, will manifest such... again.

JMAN05: I am not here to debate with you, I was just reading the posts here when I saw your reply, it shows you either did not understand where DP is coming from or that his words were too hard for you to comprehend. If you go through that question, and that is the answer you think suits it, then I dont think discussing with you will make sense 'cos you no doubt, will manifest such... again.

I'm not here to debate you either but if you find my responses too difficult to understand, then I see no point in engaging you because further explanation on my part would only confuse you further.

Deep Sight:
I just looked at your link, and it is obvious you are not ready to discuss anything. There is nothing there that discloses anything meaningful in terms of this discussion.

Hmmm.. You have nothing of value to add? Why not just say you have nothing of value to add, rather than pretend you have a point? It seems pointless

Now now, perhaps just my opinion (it isn't, but meh), but let's see how irrelevant that link is....

Deep Sight:
1. On what basis can anyone condemn the actions or moral choices of any one else?

On his/her personal value system

Deep Sight:
2. On what basis should any criminal laws exist or be made?

On the society in question's cultural value system

Does that help? Is there something particularly wrong with this answer? Perhaps you'd prefer it if it had miracles, fairies and skydaddies? And even if one squeezed a skydaddy or two in there to humour you, exactly how would the skydaddy go about defining this absolute "objective" moral code?



But wait, you do have something to add, my bad....

Deep Sight: ^^^ Please don't get confused so early in your involvement. We understand the OP when he talks about morality evolving and we know very well that that is not a Theory of Evolution issue.

When I speak of the implications of the theory of evolution vis-a-viz morality, I do so to show those who think that all that we are is derived from evolution, that they are wrong. If that were the case, and if that were to hold true and consistent, they should subscribe to significantly different moral paradigms, and be willing to do humanity great genetic and evolutionary favours by exterminating weak genes. That is a point wholly different from the argument on moral subjectivity which has been the main issue on this thread. It is a point I simply thought to draw the attention of our evolutionists to, for their consideration - on the matter of subjectivity! They need to wonder why it should be wrong for a Hitler to think that way, for example.

If indeed we are a product only of evolution, please can you tell me if there was anything wrong with the viewpoint of those who sought superior genetic progression by eliminating the weak and inferior?

And if you say there was something morally wrong with such: then please tell on what basis you say so - remembering of course, that the OP and his cohorts declare all morality to be subjective.

Thank you.

...It does remind of a muskeeto question though; do you know chickens are a type of fruit?

Btw, all this coming from someone who labels homosexuals 'unnatural'. Exactly who is doing the genetic screening?? And on what basis?! Exactly how does this 'nature' thing you allude to work?? Somewhat baffling..

And do you label people who don't believe in santa as well? What do call them? "Strict common sense users?"

^^^ Confused garbled nonsense, not that I could ever expect anything else from you after your demystification of your self with your very low minded posts on this thread.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Confused garbled nonsense, not that I could ever expect anything else from you after your demystification of your self with your very low minded posts on this thread.

This is how we know those who aren't ready for serious discussions. They run from clear responses.

^^^^ Delude yourself. I have seen the end from the beginning as you have shown a determination to fail to address the core issues here. Wiegraf's turn out on this thread has been scandalously low minded and abysmal. He hops on your nonsense about cultural values after advocating force as the proper tool for the determination of morality. Bunkum. Trash.

As for the nonsense on cultural values it of course is neither here nor there. It would ascribe as morally apt anything endorsed by the value system of a culture. This would include aztec human sacrifice, the killing of twins, child labor, honor killing, apartheid, slavery, gender apartheid, ethnic cleansing and every other perverse atrocity in history that has had the good fortune to be endorsed by a society as a cultural group based on their values.

Its a nonsensical nonstarter that makes no distinctions and I will not commit any significant energy to engaging such until and unless you answer the original questions properly and sensibly and show a grasp of the real problems and issues at play.

Deep Sight:

I do enjoy debate: but this is one discussion that does not derive from love of the play of the garb.

Here is a discussion in which a person declares that there is no evil in any atrocity in history: even that there is no such thing as atrocity: and goes so far as to insist that he will not punish or discipline his son for stealing: because morality is subjective.

I do not paraphrase him in the bold above: the gentleman said exactly so here on this thread - with all gravity, seriousness and sobriety.

All right thinking people should be deeply concerned at such declarations - these are the seeds that breed deeply misguided perverts into our collective future: at which time we will stand aghast, as with the case of a Muttallab, for example, and wonder - whence this madness?

You ought to be concerned. Very concerned. Every responsible adult should be concerned at such perversity.

When you made this statement, it was relevant. Now that y'all have gone through 10 pages of going around and around, can you still justify the *coughs* debate? Just asking...You tell me? I respect your opinion.

texanomaly:

When you made this statement, it was relevant. Now that y'all have gone through 10 pages of going around and around, can you still justify the *coughs* debate? Just asking...You tell me? I respect your opinion.

Well thank you, snd it is with deference to your comment, and cognisant of the fact that I have said that which I needed to say, that I now try to limit unnecessary brick batting here. There is nothing further to engage.

Thanks for the advise and kind words.

Deep Sight:

Well thank you, snd it is with deference to your comment, and cognisant of the fact that I have said that which I needed to say, that I now try to limit unnecessary brick batting here. There is nothing further to engage.

Thanks for the advise and kind words.

You're welcome...I knew you where a reasonable man.

Deep Sight:

Well thank you, snd it is with deference to your comment, and cognisant of the fact that I have said that which I needed to say, that I now try to limit unnecessary brick batting here. There is nothing further to engage.

Thanks for the advise and kind words.

Would it kill you to speak in simple English?

How do you survive with such heavy english on the streets of Lagos? Do you speak like this when driving alongside taxi drivers and illiterate policemen on the road?

Logicboy03:


Would it kill you to speak in simple English?

How do you survive with such heavy english on the streets of Lagos? Do you speak like this when driving alongside taxi drivers and illiterate policemen on the road?

*sighs*

LB stop bating him.

You guys...smh

Deep Sight: ^^^^ Delude yourself. I have seen the end from the beginning as you have shown a determination to fail to address the core issues here. Wiegraf's turn out on this thread has been scandalously low minded and abysmal. He hops on your nonsense about cultural values after advocating force as the proper tool for the determination of morality. Bunkum. Trash.

Looks like you've gone unhinged. I wonder why.

Deep Sight:
As for the nonsense on cultural values it of course is neither here nor there. It would ascribe as morally apt anything endorsed by the value system of a culture. This would include aztec human sacrifice, the killing of twins, child labor, honor killing, apartheid, slavery, gender apartheid, ethnic cleansing and every other perverse atrocity in history that has had the good fortune to be endorsed by a society as a cultural group based on their values.

Its a nonsensical nonstarter that makes no distinctions and I will not commit any significant energy to engaging such until and unless you answer the original questions properly and sensibly and show a grasp of the real problems and issues at play.

This is why I say you're unserious. You asked me what I base my morals on, I told you it was on my values. You erroneously thought it was interchangeable with morality but as that link shows, it isn't but you probably found that too difficult to grasp. You on the other hand were unable to say what you based your own morals on and kept running when your own question was turned on you.

You asked for the basis of criminal laws, and again, I pointed you in the direction of cultural values but that too got you confused. It made you so confused that you tried to throw some Latin words as your own excuse which I quickly exposed as being without merit. Pointing out that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws is a fact but for some reason, you confused criminal laws with morality. They're very different issues but in your stupor, you got them confused and revealed the shallowness of your thoughts.

Now we've come full circle. Whenever you're ready to engage in a discussion with the expectation of being ready to defend your own inquiries, just let me know. I'm still available to show you the right path.

mcheew! This thread was over for DS from the very first page. all he is doing here is simply flailing his hands and throwing strawmen about. Wiegraf has made quite solid rebuttals and all he(DS) does is shout Wargabl!.

I do not believe that DeepSight has not understood all what was presented in the OP. he is simply trying to play to the gallery of religious yes men on this board. majority of his opinions here have been shameful appeal to emotions and repeated verbose nonsense.

i'm done playing silly here....