Posted on 04/25/2014 8:30:14 AM PDT by fishtank
So I asked for an objective morality, and you gave me three examples. That's nonsensical.
So I'll ask again, where do you get this objective morality, and who/what decides what it is?
You cannot appeal to naturalism on one hand - and just say that rights are natural if animals and bacteria don’t have the same rights.
A prime mover - a deity - God - but it cannot come from mindless naturalism.
I don't believe that animals have rights, nor does morality exist between non-humans. There are moral justifications for how we treat animals however, and I believe that minimizing suffering should be something that a moral people take into account.
Which God? And where/how is the universal, objective morality relayed to homo sapiens? How do we decipher it?
If we are animals - why is morality different? Evolution is reproduction by whatever means possible - there is no morality to reproduction.
Hmmm... You ask which god - as opposed to mindless creation without morality, logic, and reason... I am not asking you to believe a specific religion - but believing your mind ultimately came from mindlessness is a sad doctrine...
Because we can recognize the moral repercussions of our actions, and can make moral judgements. Human beings are capable of thinking about our behaviors and evaluating them, then look and see if there are good reasons for behaving in a certain way and good reasons for not behaving in another way.
There's no evidence that animals can. If a bear kills another animal, it is not capable of understanding that that action may or may not be wrong.
There's a meaningful difference between men and animals, and it boils down to the fact that there are quantifiable, rational reasons for you not to murder someone; reasons that you are capable of contemplating and being aware of. The same is not true for an animal.
Yet, when pressed on the source of objective morality, you appealed to the non-objective concept of "God", which can mean all sorts of things. It's noncognitive; you haven't even answered your own question.
Again, you miss the point - are we merely animals that think differently and what makes our thinking any better than other animal behavior?
I already explained that. I'll post again.
Humans can recognize the moral repercussions of our actions, and can make moral judgements. Human beings are capable of thinking about our behaviors and evaluating them, then looking to see if there are good reasons for behaving in a certain way and good reasons for not behaving in another way. We can recognize and judge whether our actions will cause harm and suffering to ourselves and others, and contemplate future repurcussions.
There's no evidence that animals have the same capacity.
There's a meaningful difference between men and animals, and it boils down to the fact that there are quantifiable, rational reasons for you not to murder someone; reasons that you are capable of contemplating and being aware of. The same is not true for an animal.
You continue to miss the point - It cannot come from naturalism - you can believe in any thing from Deism to Agnostic - but morality should be objective and not a animal behavior.
Another question would be, what makes coming from intelligence so special? Why does it matter to you in the overall scheme of things?
Why does there need to be cosmic significance to your children, poetry, a sunrise, mountains, waterfalls, women, cigars, whatever you enjoy and value in life.
What is the value that is added by coming from some sort of intelligence?
I find this the most remarkable admission ever to come from your realm of thinking.
How can objective morality come from multiple sources, or "belief in anything"?
It's a simple question. You claim that objective morality exists and that it comes from supernatural sources. What exactly is the source and how does one access it?
You are correct - I have no more time to waste on this discussion - enjoy your life...
I will, thank you! And I need no supernatural decree to do so.
I have said this multiple times - morality cannot come from naturalism - I find it is dullards that try to explain this away - trying to politely state this fact over and over is boring.
Do you believe your mind ultimately came from mindlessness?
If you're referring to consciousness, I do not have enough information to comment on where consciousness comes from, and I don't believe anyone else does either.
I find this odd since this objective morality is so important to your worldview you were incapable of giving me a reason NOT TO MURDER SOMEONE without appealing to the supernatural.
Heck, I didn't even say it had to be a GOOD reason. I've never seen anyone give up that easily.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.