Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:31 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans

 (Read 26537 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #90 - January 19, 2011, 05:53 PM
    Quote
    Tut, you’re a lying, racist, prejudiced, hypocritical, selfish, novelty nihilist, philosophy shopper, sub-par troll, and quite possibly one of the dumbest fuckers I’ve ever run across online. You’re a philosophical bottom feeder. What unbendable will deep inside the core of your being is telling you that you’re a philosophical force to reckoned with? You’re a fucking joke.


     Grin
    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #91 - January 19, 2011, 05:55 PM
     
    Quote from: Ishina on January 19, 2011, 04:42 PM
    I didn’t say stealing is evil. I don't think good and evil are very grown up words. I think evil in particular is a silly word in any serious sense and should be reserved for pantomime villains and sinister moustache-twirling mad bombers in cartoons. There are shades of colour between such absolutes as right and wrong, where good and evil are indistinct and overlap. But that isn’t to say we cannot establish certain objective truths about what is right and wrong for human well-being.



    THE CRUX OF THE MATTER WHICH SHOULDN'T BE LOST IN PHILOSOPHICAL COMPLEXITIES.


    Quote from: Ishina on January 19, 2011, 04:42 PM
    Also, I would never say a child stealing a loaf of bread to survive is necessarily a bad thing - I’d do the same. Anybody would. But this isn’t because stealing is ever a good thing to do, only that sometimes we have to do things that we know are bad, and in some cases the end justifies the means.



    THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT PROVES IT!


    Quote from: Ishina on January 19, 2011, 04:42 PM
    What I did say was: It is absolutely immoral to break into someone's home, steal the kids Christmas presents from under the Christmas tree, and sell them to fund a heroin habit.

    Who is putting up a strawman again?



    Indeed! 13


    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #92 - January 19, 2011, 07:28 PM
    Quote from: serrated_colon on January 19, 2011, 04:40 AM
    these things are only 'universal truths' within our current system of thinking. 1+1 only equals 2 because it's usefully defined as such and leads to results that model reality quite nicely. whether it's 'better' to eat poison or food for nourishment would depend on what the person considers being nourished, and i can go on and on about how these things are at the core not objectively true observations.


    Interesting, but Sam Harris may retort by saying we should exclude these people from the debate of morality - I guess though it is only because the majority view those who enjoy being unhealthy or want to die as not having a valid opinion because the aim of the majority would be to survive, thrive and flourish and be in the best health they can.

    The first premise if one were to establish there were moral truths would be to give a reason why we ought to to behave one way rather than another.

    One could say why is murdering innocent people bad?

    Then you could say because it inflicts unnecessary harm and suffering upon that person

    Why is causing unnecessary harm and suffering bad?

    Because that person could die and get serious injured and would be in a bad state of health

    Why shouldn't we be in a bad state of health?

    Because we can die

    Why shouldn't we die?

    ...and so on.

    If a person attaches no value to being alive or others person's lives then one can not have a discussion with that individual. So far, it seems we can only apply a utilitarian type of thought to the debate about morality.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #93 - January 19, 2011, 07:40 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on January 18, 2011, 12:27 PM
    Yep, inalienable rights are never relative.


    You have every right to create a universal ethical system and it may even work. Just don't call it the Truth. Wink
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #94 - January 19, 2011, 08:07 PM
    Quote from: z10 on January 19, 2011, 07:40 PM
    You have every right to create a universal ethical system and it may even work. Just don't call it the Truth. Wink


    Much better than having no system at all. I don't think the philosopher's truth is that important in the real world. Sure! that universal ethical system would be  man made and by its very nature imperfect. But there's no reason why it can't or shouldn't evolve around a few constants like the inalienable right to live for eg.
     
    Do you mean to say that the pain and suffering experienced by a woman who is being raped and killed in the US is different from that of a woman being stoned to death in Iran, and that we should discriminate between the agents causing it on relativistic grounds?


    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #95 - January 19, 2011, 08:14 PM
    I am merely repeating the dictum that some have said above: objectivity, seen in the clearest light, is a farce.
    Having said that, there is no reason why man can't create something meaningful. The ability to create after all, is the ability of a lifetime.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #96 - January 19, 2011, 08:18 PM
    Quote from: z10 on January 19, 2011, 07:40 PM
    You have every right to create a universal ethical system and it may even work. Just don't call it the Truth. Wink


    All knowledge is based on epistemological assumptions, but I'm happy to call things that are elementary or obvious ="truth", and then move on.

    If we can permit that certain things are at least desirable or beneficial to overall human well-being, it follows that some ethical or moral statements will either be true or false, within this defined framework of understanding we will use to share ideas, where, if only for arguments sake, human well-being is a goal.

    There is no point even talking or typing words at each other unless we agree to speak the same language, one that we both understand. There is no point discussing how much money I owe you if we can’t agree that 1+1=2, for example. The conversation is over before it begins. We need to at some point crawl out of this quagmire of indefinite-ness, where even the nature of reality is constantly questioned in casual conversation, and all statements, even informal ones, require constant qualification. There is only so much philosophy for the sake of philosophy I can tolerate before watching paint dry starts to look interesting.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #97 - January 19, 2011, 08:26 PM
    Just because human rights work doesn't render it moral truth but merely morally right in the given global social context that most of us want to live, and live freely.

    To make an analogy. We have classical mechanics in physics which do work as far as the macro-world and describe well how things with significant mass and dimensions ought to behave, but then these physical laws collapse when we try to use them to describe matter on a quantum level.

    I have nothing against, I am glad we have human rights but the word 'truth' is too often thrown around to describe ideas which do not deserve such a position and this is the reservation I have of 'objective morality' - it's still an idea yet to be ascertained as many others.

    Quote from: Ishina on January 19, 2011, 08:18 PM
    All knowledge is based on epistemological assumptions, but I'm happy to call things that are elementary or obvious ="truth", and then move on.

    If we can permit that certain things are at least desirable or beneficial to overall human well-being, it follows that some ethical or moral statements will either be true or false, within this defined framework of understanding we will use to share ideas, where, if only for arguments sake, human well-being is a goal.

    There is no point even talking or typing words at each other unless we agree to speak the same language, one that we both understand. There is no point discussing how much money I owe you if we can’t agree that 1+1=2, for example. The conversation is over before it begins. We need to at some point crawl out of this quagmire of indefinite-ness, where even the nature of reality is constantly questioned in casual conversation, and all statements, even informal ones, require constant qualification. There is only so much philosophy for the sake of philosophy I can tolerate before watching paint dry starts to look interesting.



    I see your and Sam Harris' point.  So we are to exclude people who have no desire for human well being and survival from the debate in order to determine these truths?
    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #98 - January 19, 2011, 08:27 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on January 19, 2011, 08:18 PM
    All knowledge is based on epistemological assumptions, but I'm happy to call things that are elementary or obvious ="truth", and then move on.

    If we can permit that certain things are at least desirable or beneficial to overall human well-being, it follows that some ethical or moral statements will either be true or false, within this defined framework of understanding we will use to share ideas, where, if only for arguments sake, human well-being is a goal.

    There is no point even talking or typing words at each other unless we agree to speak the same language, one that we both understand. There is no point discussing how much money I owe you if we can’t agree that 1+1=2, for example. The conversation is over before it begins. We need to at some point crawl out of this quagmire of indefinite-ness, where even the nature of reality is constantly questioned in casual conversation, and all statements, even informal ones, require constant qualification. There is only so much philosophy for the sake of philosophy I can tolerate before watching paint dry starts to look interesting.



    I don't see how this is an intolerable situation for you. Surely, the very fact that there is no real objectivity, is the very reason that gives you the ability to create a supreme ethics? Why burden yourself with wanting it to be the absolute truth aswell as a system that works?

    Everyone wants a way to live. Ethics should be a concern. But I think the point is to create meaning, and to forget about whether that meaning is objective.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #99 - January 19, 2011, 08:28 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on January 19, 2011, 04:42 PM
    Tut, you’re a lying, racist, prejudiced, hypocritical, selfish, novelty nihilist, philosophy shopper, sub-par troll, and quite possibly one of the dumbest fuckers I’ve ever run across online. You’re a philosophical bottom feeder. What unbendable will deep inside the core of your being is telling you that you’re a philosophical force to reckoned with? You’re a fucking joke. A laughing stock. You’re the resident punch bag, at best. An annoying ankle-biter, at worst.


    I am on my last smite, so I will refrain from addressing the above. Since my response to the above would have more firepower then the death star.

    Quote
    What do you care about what is ‘redundantly idiotic‘? You can’t even fucking READ.


    You can't concede a point.


    Quote
    I didn’t say stealing is evil. I don't think good and evil are very grown up words. I think evil in particular is a silly word in any serious sense and should be reserved for pantomime villains and sinister moustache-twirling mad bombers in cartoons. There are shades of colour between such absolutes as right and wrong, where good and evil are indistinct and overlap. But that isn’t to say we cannot establish certain objective truths about what is right and wrong for human well-being.


    LOL. There are no objective truths when it comes to morals! fail!

    Quote
    Also, I would never say a child stealing a loaf of bread to survive is necessarily a bad thing - I’d do the same. Anybody would. But this isn’t because stealing is ever a good thing to do, only that sometimes we have to do things that we know are bad, and in some cases the end justifies the means.


    It does not only have to be for survival, even for please and benefit it still would suffice.  

    Quote
    What I did say was: It is absolutely immoral to break into someone's home, steal the kids Christmas presents from under the Christmas tree, and sell them to fund a heroin habit.


    No such thing as absolute morals. You seem to have an inability to actually comprehend your own argument.  

    Quote
    Who is putting up a strawman again?


    You are, for moving the goal posts. What is wrong with stealing you argue stealing is absolutely immoral yet you fail to provide any evidence. Is something is absolute, then changing the context and saying it is not wrong to steal and that even you would do it, makes it subjective, thus refuting your own argument! lol.

    In anycase, your literacy barfing is not going to redeem your incomprehensibility.  
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #100 - January 19, 2011, 08:41 PM
    Quote from: Heyjustlooking on January 19, 2011, 08:26 PM
    I see your and Sam Harris' point.  So we are to exclude people who have no desire for human well being and survival from the debate in order to determine these truths?


    I think people who have no desire for human well-being and survival don’t have an opinion worth considering when trying to promote human well-being and human survival, which is what any moral or ethical discussion boils down to for me.

    Has such a person come to a conclusion based on intelligent analysis of the causes and conditions of human well-being? Is such a stance even making any sense, moraly, logicaly, ethicaly, or otherwise? What valid input are they actually offering to the discussion?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #101 - January 19, 2011, 08:45 PM
    The overwhelming tolerance and civilized discussion in this thread is too much for me. I'll go look for some bigotry and people screaming to make a point. Adios.
    "That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #102 - January 19, 2011, 08:56 PM
    Quote from: z10 on January 19, 2011, 08:27 PM
    I don't see how this is an intolerable situation for you. Surely, the very fact that there is no real objectivity, is the very reason that gives you the ability to create a supreme ethics? Why burden yourself with wanting it to be the absolute truth aswell as a system that works?

    Everyone wants a way to live. Ethics should be a concern. But I think the point is to create meaning, and to forget about whether that meaning is objective.


    It doesn’t have to be an absolute truth. But can we really avoid words like true, false, right, wrong, in a discussion about morals? It just so happens that the main point of contention seems to be these very concepts. People seem to panic about certain words and language prematurely I think, before they have even heard what somebody’s ideas or proposals are.

    It might be that a person doesn’t even have the answers or the truths about anything, but simply believes trying to establish certain truths is a conversation worth having, and a pertinent one. There is an overbearing actuality that we are the current custodians of this world, and all life within it. Our fate is delicate. The idea that we are capable of destroying ourselves forever sometime in the near future is not science-fiction. Nor are the remarkable scientific advances that are pressing the global morality debate - stem-cell research being the big one that will open up more and more moral questions that have to be addressed, the sooner the better.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #103 - January 19, 2011, 08:58 PM
    Quote from: Alex Lam Meem on January 19, 2011, 08:45 PM
    The overwhelming tolerance and civilized discussion in this thread is too much for me. I'll go look for some bigotry and people screaming to make a point. Adios.


    Don't leave. There is an ignore button, you can put members on ignore.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #104 - January 19, 2011, 09:09 PM
    Hmmm... ignore button..  thnkyu
    "That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #105 - January 19, 2011, 09:12 PM
    Don't you think ex-Muslims who cannot accept that others may disagree are cute... like baby goats?
    "That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #106 - January 19, 2011, 09:13 PM
    Just a heads up: you have to add someone to both the forum ignore list and the private message ignore list, assuming you want to ignore them both ways.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #107 - January 19, 2011, 09:15 PM
    Quote from: Alex Lam Meem on January 19, 2011, 09:12 PM
    Don't you think ex-Muslims who cannot accept that others may disagree are cute... like baby goats?


    I don't think they are 'cute' though I do find childlike naivety funny.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #108 - January 19, 2011, 09:32 PM
    It's very funny. E.g. believing a video, even if it tells them that morality until now has been domain of religions.
    "That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #109 - January 19, 2011, 10:15 PM
    Quote from: King Tut on January 19, 2011, 08:28 PM
    I am on my last smite, so I will refrain from addressing the above. Since my response to the above would have more firepower then the death star.

     Cheesy
    19:46   <zizo>: hugs could pimp u into sex

    Quote from: yeezevee
    well I am neither ex-Muslim nor absolute 100% Non-Muslim.. I am fucking Zebra

  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #110 - January 19, 2011, 11:48 PM
    p
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #111 - January 20, 2011, 12:00 AM
    Peter Singer has some interesting ideas. I'm not with him on abortion though.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #112 - January 20, 2011, 12:06 AM
    Quote
       Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy.

    He then adds that "If we ever do find a better system, I'll be happy to call myself an anti-capitalist."---PETER SINGER


    Smart guy!  Afro


    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #113 - January 20, 2011, 12:09 AM
    Wait, no, I'm wrong. I thought he was the Supervegan guy.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #114 - January 20, 2011, 12:14 AM
    Quote from: Mount A Bison on January 19, 2011, 11:48 PM
    I was content to observe this war of ideas from the sidelines fortified by a bottle of the finest whiskey to ever kiss the lips of man. I’m just a country boy who is intellectually barefoot. And so I was happy to remain, heisting a glass to the merchants of immorality here assembled and blowing thick clouds of tobacco smoke like a cigar-chomping Fidel Castro at a Havana siesta till Bentham cropped up. For the sake of the Divine, can’t we just keep the fellow’s name out of it? It compels the man’s devotees to put down the Drink of Life, switch off the gay porn and take up the keyboard. Where’s the fun in that?  Now, just what on God’s orbiting ball of dirt has Jeremy Bentham in common with Burke?


    It was sheer fun reading your post, had to point out if forgiven, as the name was mentioned for this article

    http://www.ditext.com/bentham/bentham.html
    "Religion is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking" Bill Maher
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #115 - January 20, 2011, 12:32 AM
    Quote from: z10 on January 19, 2011, 07:40 PM
    You have every right to create a universal ethical system and it may even work. Just don't call it the Truth. Wink

     Afro

    Quote from: Ishina on January 19, 2011, 08:18 PM
    All knowledge is based on epistemological assumptions, but I'm happy to call things that are elementary or obvious ="truth", and then move on.

    If we can permit that certain things are at least desirable or beneficial to overall human well-being, it follows that some ethical or moral statements will either be true or false, within this defined framework of understanding we will use to share ideas, where, if only for arguments sake, human well-being is a goal.

    There is no point even talking or typing words at each other unless we agree to speak the same language, one that we both understand. There is no point discussing how much money I owe you if we can’t agree that 1+1=2, for example. The conversation is over before it begins. We need to at some point crawl out of this quagmire of indefinite-ness, where even the nature of reality is constantly questioned in casual conversation, and all statements, even informal ones, require constant qualification. There is only so much philosophy for the sake of philosophy I can tolerate before watching paint dry starts to look interesting.



    the moment you call these assumptions truths they do become non-negotiable to you, I like to think that I have felt the state that you are in and found myself helpless in front of questions where you begin to question reality. I am not at all against you and when it comes to overall human welfare I will agree with you but the whole point I am trying to make is that the morality which you hold so dear and treat it as an absolute or constant is a mere variable to me, I will go one step further and I am open to the idea that all constants may be variable and then start building on it. If I choose a rigid statement my whole moral argument will nothing more than a religion in itself.
    "Religion is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking" Bill Maher
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #116 - January 20, 2011, 12:33 AM
    q
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #117 - January 20, 2011, 12:42 AM
    Quote from: Mount A Bison on January 20, 2011, 12:33 AM
    Of course I will forgive you. But only if you let me squeeze you like a bunny. Stray question: Are you male or female? No matter. I don't discriminate.


    male should I be worried, you have shown your gay tendencies  Tongue
    "Religion is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking" Bill Maher
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #118 - January 20, 2011, 12:47 AM
    l
  • Re: Do some survival instincts conflict with Social Evolution of Humans
     Reply #119 - January 20, 2011, 12:53 AM
    @MAB let the fling go on  Wink a bit to soon before we exchange numbers
    "Religion is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking" Bill Maher
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »