Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{News
October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism

6}_{Categories
Ethics
Intelligent Design
Naturalism
theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

PS: We duly note the continued side-stepping of the establishment of the point that even objectors to the first duties are forced to appeal to them to try to be persuasive. Thus we see the inescapability of first principles in action, which are inescapable so inescapably true. Framing a coherent system of first duties that allows articulation of objective, sound moral thought, law and government. Which happens to have a major history of contributing to the rise of modern liberty and constitutional democracy. The contrast to the heritage of the jacobins since 1789 could not be clearer. There is clearly no good reason to imagine there are no objective moral truths. Where that little fallacy just now is actually a claimed -- failed, self refuting -- morality truth claim. The subjectivism, relativism and emotivism such fallacies support have failed on the merits. Which does not prevent them from being ideologically powerful.kairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

JVL, you have studiously avoided the response to your shopping list of distractors approach. For the record:
71: >>you [by posing a shopping list of distractive demands] seem to be unaware of the reformation principle, where in real historical, going concern settings, we have pre existing circumstances. Absent radical utopian imposition which always ends in oppression as radical revolutions since 1789, 1870 and 1917 have underscored, there has to be a slow building of sensitisation and soundness of conscience, creation of agreed consensus on responsible amelioration or reform etc. At simple level have you forgotten the result of the prohibition experiment in the US? Namely, the Mafia gained a huge boost and the law was brought into disrepute. I suggest that your side tracking issues would be best approached through the reformation principle. And we cannot but notice that the force of inescapable first duties may have been distracted from but are not cogently objected to . . . . You also conveniently side step centuries of contribution during which those ciceronian first duties as key natural law shaped the emergence of modern liberty and constitutional democracy. Failing to attend to such is a material factor in the breakdown of lawfulness and rise of suicidal nihilism and marches of folly that are increasingly obvious in our time.>> 75: >>the corrective to radicalism and SJW-ism’s cancel culture, Red Guardism, etc stands. So do the Ciceronian first duties of reason as core to an objective framework of morality, sound community order, law and government.>> 77: >>BTW as historically demonstrated the 7 Ciceronian principles articulate a global core that governs rational responsible freedom, the ellipsis implies articulation to literally anything. In a sense they are analogous to an axiomatisation, which should be obvious from what they are, the above [e.g. Paul’s elaboration of neighbour love as a microcosm of not only the decalogue but lawfulnes) and the actual course of thousands of years of history. The notion that because these are not a 32k-page EU-like Constitution that tries to capture every conceivable hobby horse, they are not comprehensive, fails. Ponder just how broad and microcosm-like and mutually coherent truth, right reason, prudence including warrant and sound conscience are. >>
The this is always year zero of the latest utopia and let us stigmatise and cancel the past approach fails. Instead, we need a sound framework that allows gradual development and reform, understood as a sound alternative to radical impositions that never end well. FYI, this is not year zero and we have seen where radical revolutions consistently go. We consciously accept the path of gradual, sound reformation as by far a better choice. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

should women be allowed to vote?
You are naive or evil . https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rtxG93cPlus
Ummm . . . are you saying giving women the rights to vote, own property, go to university, etc were essentially negative innovations?
Ummm...what are the results? You are the result of "feminism" ...Sandy_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

ET: The 10 Commandments is a good place to start for objective morality. It's a start but it leaves a lot of issues out. For instance: should women be allowed to vote? Should women be allowed to be ministers or priests? Who should have jurisdiction over ancient remains (a reference to Kenewick Man)? Again, a good start but how do you get more granular?JVL_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

@Origenes You don't seem to be following any rules. You don't seem to really read my posts, you don't study what rules are used in common discourse. This all just seems to be about you "emoting" some point of view. I already, answered your question, as much as it can be answered. I also already explained objectivity and subjectivity. A dictionary definition is not the same as how a word is defined, in actual practical common discourse. These people from the dictionary may just likely be atheists, and define things according to their atheistic ideas, and not according to the meaning in common discourse. A (subjective) opinion, like to say a painting is beautiful, is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. An (objective) fact, like to say there is a camel out back, is a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation in the mind, forced by the evidence of it. You see? Rules. The rules for subjective statements and objective statements, as they are in common discourse, hopefully, accurately reflected by me, and not fantasized by me.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

@86 Mohammadnursyamsu, Dictionary.com:
Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something. In contrast, objectivemost commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only.
So, here the difference between subjective and objective is the difference between a person “observing” something and a person “analyzing” something. First of all, this obviously does not provide a clear distinction. Also, given that each person can only operate from a personal perspective, [there is no such thing as a non-personal viewpoint] there is no pathway offered to objectivity.
It is apparent to me that the people supporting objective morality, understand nothing about morality.
As I understand it, the pro-objective-morality crowd, argues for moral laws coming from a realm independent from us. This would satisfy one of your cherised common discourse rules, namely that “objective” means not being based on a personal (human) viewpoint. p.s. You continue to ignore my specific question.Origenes_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

The 10 Commandments is a good place to start for objective morality.ET_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
But my point was that the decision about whether anything is pornographic is subjective (as Judge Stewart) was acknowledging.
Hard core pornography. The decision pertained to hard core pornography. Clearly you are proud to be clueless.ET_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

@origenes It is apparent to me that the people supporting objective morality, understand nothing about morality. If you are not interested in the rules used in common discourse, then don't use the rules in talking, then talk arbitrary gibberish instead. You already have a position, whether you like it or not, the common discourse position. It was forced upon you, it is unavoidable. The logic of subjectivity and objectivity is the same in any language. So then you are supposed to research what your actual position is, in investigating common discourse. And from there, from your common discourse position, you can negotiate between it, and other intellectual ideas. You cannot just intellectually entertain ideas that are contradictory to common discourse, without even noting that they are contradictory, because that would leave you open to accusations that you are duplicit, and a liar. Which is immorality. Saying one thing is true in common discourse, and saying another thing is true intellectually.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau: For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation LOL. I would call it incredulity. As to rights in your worldview they have no objective existence either or do they? If they don’t well we are left with your opinion ,which your certainly entitled to and ( cough cough) might makes rights. I would say that, sometimes, might makes laws not right. Sandy: There are no “civil rights of women” but actualy are just civil rights of “state” to destroy family and educate the children as they wish. We see the fruits now. With these “civil rights” women lost their way because they were an undestructible power inside family for children and husband. Now they are just crazy blue hair transexual freaks. Children were the main target but for that they had to remove woman from her task of preserving the family and educating the children. Ummm . . . are you saying giving women the rights to vote, own property, go to university, etc were essentially negative innovations?JVL_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

PS: He also comments:
To sum up: empiricism has categories for statements of “disproved” and “not disproved” and also for “parsimonious” and “not parsimonious.” By means of a faculty other than empirical thought, a scientist invents an account, myth, or model to predict the behavior of matter. If his model contains no more entities than needed, it is “parsimonious.” If the model does not accurately predict the attempted behavior, it is “disproved”. If not, it is “not disproved.” Karl Popper adds the refinement that if there is no possible predicted behavior exists which can register a “disproved” statement, then the model is not science at all. This is empiricism. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Science holds as an axiom, neither to be proved nor disproven in science, the following statement of the empirical axiom: “a parsimonious non-disproved model is true, provisionally.” This is a metaphysical statement, not open to disproof by any empirical means. This is epistemology. Unrelated to all this is secularism, a political posture. Secularism promotes indifference to religion, or, at least, that neutrality toward religion is the proper stance for civic and political affairs. It runs in harness with Materialism, which states that nothing outside or above the material world exists, or, if it does exist, no statements about it are open to proof or disproof, or, if they are open to proof, the proofs are of no particular objective value or subjective interest. The first is a political opinion, the second a philosophical statement of ontology: neither one can either be proved or disproved by empirical investigation. They are unrelated to science, even though they pretend to bask in the reputation science radiates.
Methinks, we have here a person of interest who should be "assisting the police with investigations." We have painted ourselves into a corner and consequences that were brushed aside and dismissed when they were mere warnings are now beginning to stare us down. Nihilism and lawlessness, ideological oligarchy of the lawless etc cannot build or sustain a sound civilisation. It is time to rethink how we got ourselves painted into this corner.kairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

F/N: J C Wright draws out a tad regarding duty to neighbour (in the already linked):
Moses and Confucius and Christ [--> and Paul!], and every other sage and thinker in antiquity have voiced the moral axiom of the Golden Rule: Do as you would be Done by. This is a wise conclusion. If you doubt it, try living your life with a moral and mental rule that the laws that apply to others apply to others only and not to you. Live in a land where everyone adopts the rule that they live with rules that apply only to others, never to themselves. Puzzle over the logic of how a dispute would be solved between two moral actors who both agree the rules only applies to the other: or how any dispute could be solved at all, in the absence of a universal rule equally applied. You will soon become confused and foolish. The inability to see wisdom as a valid category of thought—for it is neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable, but neither is it empiricism nor rationalism—has led modern philosophy into blatant folly and paradox.
In short, the duty of love to neighbour of like rational responsibly free order, with do no harm/wrong and fairness-justice, is coherent and works towards the civil peace of justice. The suggestion also shows how evils parasite on others, bringing out the Kant Categorical Imperative in universalisability form. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, Mindblowing! Thanks for the update. -QQuerius_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

Q, and yet that is the beauty of empirical science, the evidence is what it is. The meta-analysis that I listed put an exclamation point on the preceding study.
Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis – 2012 Excerpt: This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect.,,, To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size ,,,, Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full
And please note, the more rigorous the study was, the better the results were. Not 'case closed' evidence quite yet, but still very impressive, and consistent, evidence thus far none-the-less. Just for curiosity sake, I looked to see if they continued their study, and I just found this 2018 update to the study:
Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis - 2018 Discussion This update of the Mossbridge et al. (2012) meta-analysis related to the so called predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) responses to future random stimuli, covers the period January 2008- July 2018. Overall, we found 19 new studies describing a total of 36 effect sizes. Differently from the statistical approach of Mossbridge et al., in this meta-analysis we used a frequentist and a Bayesian multilevel model which allows an analysis of all effect sizes reported within a single study instead of averaging them. Both the frequentist and the Bayesian analyses converged on similar results, making our findings quite robust. ,,, Conclusion This update confirms the main results reported in Mossbridge et al. (2012) original meta-analysis and gives further support to the hypothesis of predictive physiological anticipatory activity of future random events. This phenomenon may hence be considered among the more reliable within those covered under the umbrella term “psi” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/
bornagain77_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @68, Thanks for the updated links. The experimental results are astonishing! Nevertheless in a reality that includes quantum erasure, perhaps one ought not to be surprised. Still, I find myself grasping for objections. -QQuerius_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Vivid: "For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation" BINGO! That is the same blatant contradiction in logic that William Lane Craig observed in Richard Dawkins' arguments against objective morality.,
"Although Dawkins says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, the fact is that Dawkins is also a stubborn moralist. For example,,," - Richard Dawkins on the Moral Argument for God: by William Lane Craig https://youtu.be/d-OjSKr79aQ?t=65
bornagain77_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

JVL For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation LOL. As to rights in your worldview they have no objective existence either or do they? If they don’t well we are left with your opinion ,which your certainly entitled to and ( cough cough) might makes rights. Vividvividbleau_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

F/N: BTW as historically demonstrated the 7 Ciceronian principles articulate a global core that governs rational responsible freedom, the ellipsis implies articulation to literally anything. In a sense they are analogous to an axiomatisation, which should be obvious from what they are, the above [e.g. Paul's elaboration of neighbour love as a microcosm of not only the decalogue but lawfulnes) and the actual course of thousands of years of history. The notion that because these are not a 32k-page EU-like Constitution that tries to capture every conceivable hobby horse, they are not comprehensive, fails. Ponder just how broad and microcosm-like and mutually coherent truth, right reason, prudence including warrant and sound conscience are. KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

why woman had to wait longer than men to be granted some of the same civil rights.
BS. There are no "civil rights of women" but actualy are just civil rights of "state" to destroy family and educate the children as they wish. We see the fruits now. With these "civil rights" women lost their way because they were an undestructible power inside family for children and husband. Now they are just crazy blue hair transexual freaks. Children were the main target but for that they had to remove woman from her task of preserving the family and educating the children. .Sandy_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

JVL, the corrective to radicalism and SJW-ism's cancel culture, Red Guardism, etc stands. So do the Ciceronian first duties of reason as core to an objective framework of morality, sound community order, law and government. KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Sandy: To make an objective moral statement about an objective moral system you have to have in your pocket THE objective moral code. Do you really have something like that? Where from ? ? I'm open to persuasion. PS: when you see more moral systems inside Christianity this is the sign that for sure there is an objective moral system out there and there is only one True Christian Church . When there are 3 main Christian Churches and ,(only 2 that come from Apostles) you can’t conclude there is no true Christian Church ? ,a logical conclusion should be there is only one true Christian Church that have continuity from Apostles and hasn’t change fundamentally since then. So, how can an outsider tell them apart?JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

JVL If it exists then why can it not be produced, demonstrated and why is there disagreement about what it says? Can you produce this objective, moral code? For all cases? Even when many of the faithful cannot agree on what it says?
To make an objective moral statement about an objective moral system you have to have in your pocket THE objective moral code. Do you really have something like that? Where from ? ;) PS: when you see more moral systems inside Christianity this is the sign that for sure there is an objective moral system out there and there is only one True Christian Church because Christ is ONE. When there are 3 main Christian Churches and (only 2 that come from Apostles and split in 1054) you can't conclude that because there are 3 Churches that means there is no true Christian Church :) ,a logical conclusion should be there is only one true Christian Church that have continuity from Apostles and hasn't change fundamentally since then.Sandy_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

KF: JVL, you seem to be unaware of the reformation principle, where in real historical, going concern settings, we have pre existing circumstances. Absent radical utopian imposition which always ends in oppression as radical revolutions since 1789, 1870 and 1917 have underscored, there has to be a slow building of sensitisation and soundnes of conscience, creation of agreed consensus on responsible amelioration or reform etc. At simple level have you forgotten the result of the prohibition experiment in the US? Namely, the Mafia gained a huge boost and the law was brought into disrepute. I suggest that your side tracking issues would be best approached through the reformation principle. And we cannot but notice that the force of inescapable first duties may have been distracted from but are not cogently objected to. You seem to like to dance around actually discussing what your objective moral standard has to say about current and past issues. If one can't apply it to real world situations what use is it? And by the way: if you think your constant and invariant moral compass took centuries to guide human kind to a kinder and gentler situation that still doesn't explain why woman had to wait longer than men to be granted some of the same civil rights.JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

JVL, you seem to be unaware of the reformation principle, where in real historical, going concern settings, we have pre existing circumstances. Absent radical utopian imposition which always ends in oppression as radical revolutions since 1789, 1870 and 1917 have underscored, there has to be a slow building of sensitisation and soundnes of conscience, creation of agreed consensus on responsible amelioration or reform etc. At simple level have you forgotten the result of the prohibition experiment in the US? Namely, the Mafia gained a huge boost and the law was brought into disrepute. I suggest that your side tracking issues would be best approached through the reformation principle. And we cannot but notice that the force of inescapable first duties may have been distracted from but are not cogently objected to. KF PS: You also conveniently side step centuries of contribution during which those ciceronian first duties as key natural law shaped the emergence of modern liberty and constitutional democracy. Failing to attend to such is a material factor in the breakdown of lawfulness and rise of suicidal nihilism and marches of folly that are increasingly obvious in our time.kairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

KF: In short neighbour love is the principle behind do no harm/wrong to neighbour, thus unfolds into issues of fairness and justice. Justice being due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where one may only justly claim a right or freedom if one is manifestly in the right; there is no right to compel another to taint soul by violating sound conscience. From this outline, a whole historical flow unfolds. As say Locke noted from Hooker in his 2nd treatise on civil govt. Oh, right . . . so woman should have been granted the right to go to university, vote, own property, run a sanctioned marathon at the same time as men. That's good to know. So, why didn't it happen that way? If there is an eternal and objective moral standard then: a) it doesn't address such important issues. b) some people just didn't understand what it said. c) it says something opposite of what most advanced societies now believe. It's your standard so you tell me: what does your objective moral standard specifically say about giving women the same rights as men? I think that's important don't you? (Personally, I don't understand how it ever came to be that women were not treated the same way as men. It makes no sense. To me. But considering the historical record it's clearly been the case for thousands of years that women's rights have been a subset of men's rights. I'd just like to know how a proposed objective moral standard addresses that issue.)JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

PPS, kindly note, too, the negative form: "for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. "kairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the heads up Querius, here is a live link: Quantum Mind Time Flies (Backwards?) https://www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/quantum-mind-time-flies-backwards And here is a live link to the experiment ANOMALOUS ANTICIPATORY BRAIN ACTIVATION PRECEDING EXPOSURE OF EMOTIONAL AND NEUTRAL PICTURES https://www.quantumconsciousness.org/sites/default/files/presentiment_0.pdfbornagain77_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

JVL, again, we have the branch on which we must all sit laid out, indeed listed as the seven specific first duties traceable to Cicero. I took time to give a key case from Epictetus, on right reason. I cannot but note that your erroneous denial appeals to duty to truth etc, itself. KF PS: In case you think these are not tied to traditional moral principles, I note an astute observation by St Paul, in Rom 13: "8 . . . the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." In short neighbour love is the principle behind do no harm/wrong to neighbour, thus unfolds into issues of fairness and justice. Justice being due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where one may only justly claim a right or freedom if one is manifestly in the right; there is no right to compel another to taint soul by violating sound conscience. From this outline, a whole historical flow unfolds. As say Locke noted from Hooker in his 2nd treatise on civil govt.kairosfocus_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @48 Your link to Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD is 404, but this looks like an interesting experiment! -QQuerius_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Jerry: This issue has an history. I am certainly not recommending women not compete in marathons or vote but it’s a bogus issue. Really. First off: why were women prohibited from competing? Secondly, why did some of them fight so hard for the right to compete? Or to vote. Especially since I’m one of the most knowledgeable persons in the country on people’s capability for competing in such events. Given the right testing and training history it is possible to predict a result in a race to within a small degree. For some short races to within less than a second. What does the probability of winning have to do with the right or the desire to compete? Also not too long ago most men couldn’t vote and few if any could run a marathon safely. I believe the original marathon runner died. Explain to me why women fought so hard, in many countries, against scads of opposition to acquire the right to vote? Do you think they thought: oh well, even men haven't had that ability until recently, we'll just wait 'til it's our turn? You keep brushing significant women's issues aside as if they were insignificant. What's the problem you keep saying. Hey, they can't physically match up with men anyway. You're not saying they shouldn't vote or run marathons but . . . it's a bogus issue. Why don't you ask a woman if those are bogus issues? Most importantly, ask yourself: why weren't women granted the same rights as men at the same time?JVL_{October 19, 2021
October
10
Oct
19
19
2021
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply