What the extremist-fundamentalists ignore

[Guest Joe]

How is the serial murderer's enjoyment of serial killing less real than the grounding of your value system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Simple. Your right to be happy doesn't allow you to do it at my expense. Remember, the preference for happiness is universal. Without that, it wouldn't have the power it has. When you take the universal quality out of it (for example, by making yourself happy in my misery), you change it completely, and you can't do that within the framework of the humanist system, or the Golden Rule for that matter, which by the way is found in one form or another in all the major religions, not just Christianity.

In addition to that, you don't understand how evolutionary systems work. In genetics, for example, a trait for congeniality may convey evolutionary advantages in some environments, but that's no longer true in a society of people who take advantage of congeniality to harm the congenial; in such a society, assuming it existed for thousands of years, a genetic predisposition for congeniality would be disfavored and selected out of the population. Sure, if you had a society of people who gain their happiness at the expense of others, then the trait for happiness is evolutionarily unstable and won't be replicated. But if you have a society in which people respect each other's desire for happiness and go out of their way to try to help others in their quest to be happy, you have a stable society of happy people. And in social evolution it doesn't take thousands of years. Social evolution can happen very quickly. That illustrates the power of human choice. It's also part of the wisdom behind "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

We're all aware that good people often get taken advantage of, but the point of a moral, ethical or legal system is to find ways to reward and encourage behavior that honors universally shared preferences like happiness. Good God, so to speak, do we really have to explain this to you?

Bryan, you've gotten your behind kicked on this point. Enough already. Why are you so intent on arguing against the Golden Rule? You've made the answer obvious: it doesn't require the existence of a god, and you're hell-bent on believing that there's a god. You'll make any argument to maintain that belief, even an argument about morally perfect and now sentient rocks. But those things are not reality; the fact that morality and ethics are grounded in human preferences is reality.

So maybe your current opinions about the existence of a god are wrong. To quite a few of us, that's pretty obvious. Open your eyes to the fact. You'll be a lot happier, and you'll be more useful to the world.

[Guest Joe]

(1) QUOTE

If we are to discuss a moral system at all, we will have to discuss how we relate to and treat others.

Why?

(2) QUOTE

Knowing that others want the same basic things I want, I choose to treat them with respect and dignity, and will attempt to the best of my limited ability to help them achieve their desires and avoid sufferng. The value judgment comes from the very nature of being human, but at the same time it is a choice. You can make it or not make it. I choose to make it because it promotes the good as I see it, not just for myself but also for others.

Your statement that your value judgment "comes from the very nature of being human" looks like a contradiction in company with your admission that one can easily choose the other way.

Are you making the unspoken assumption that those who choose the other way are choosing against their values? How, then, can you account for the decision?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) You've got to be kidding. No, this is Bryan, he means it. OK the answer:

Because morality is about how we treat others. That's what morality is.

(2) There's no contradiction. We are a large-brained species capable of making value judgments and ethical and moral decisions. Ants can't do that. Most species can't do it. We have a rich and complex emotional and intellectual life, are capable of thinking symbolically and making ethical and moral decisions with planned implications years into the future. And we share a desire for health, happiness, not starving or freezing to death, etc. We can think about how to construct systems that work for everyone (i.e., make us healthy, happy and satisfied). Believe it or not, Bryan, some people are trying to do that. Some people even think that's what Jesus was trying to do!

Arrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh!

I'm t'ru wit' dis one.

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote:

“The intrinsic so-called "values" of good health and happiness only apply to one for whom it is intrinsic, AFAICT. How is it intrinsically good for me if Joe Smith is healthy and happy?”

and

“How is the serial murderer's enjoyment of serial killing less real than the grounding of your value system?”

Use your imagination Bryan. Surely your religious fanaticism hasn’t erased all your human empathy and decency has it? Or are you really that selfish?

[Bryan]

(1) You've got to be kidding. No, this is Bryan, he means it. OK the answer:

Because morality is about how we treat others. That's what morality is.

Why would you intentionally make a statement that vacuous, if that's what you meant by it?

Your statement that your value judgment "comes from the very nature of being human" looks like a contradiction in company with your admission that one can easily choose the other way.

Are you making the unspoken assumption that those who choose the other way are choosing against their values? How, then, can you account for the decision?

(2) There's no contradiction. We are a large-brained species capable of making value judgments and ethical and moral decisions. Ants can't do that. Most species can't do it.

Do you intend to address my criticism at some point, or will you stand pat with "There's no contradiction"?

We have a rich and complex emotional and intellectual life, are capable of thinking symbolically and making ethical and moral decisions with planned implications years into the future. And we share a desire for health, happiness, not starving or freezing to death, etc. We can think about how to construct systems that work for everyone (i.e., make us healthy, happy and satisfied). Believe it or not, Bryan, some people are trying to do that. Some people even think that's what Jesus was trying to do!

Arrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh!

I'm t'ru wit' dis one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're not going to address the discrepancy between asserting that your value judgment "comes from the very nature of being human" and your admission that you could have chosen differently. Instead you're going to make like the criticism was silly (fallacy of appeal to ridicule).

The problem you've got, Joe, is that simply making what appear to be value judgments doesn't give us any assurance that the value judgments are right. Your claims that humans are different from other species doesn't address my criticism at all.

Take your ball, go home now?

[Bryan]

How is the serial murderer's enjoyment of serial killing less real than the grounding of your value system?

Simple.

I doubt it.

Your right to be happy doesn't allow you to do it at my expense.

Why not? Because your value system is better (thus committing the fallacy of begging the question)?

Or some other feat of creative reasoning?

Remember, the preference for happiness is universal.

Right. We're agreed on that (for the sake of argument, at least). The serial killer will be happy once you've been killed by him. Or are you suggesting that the serial killer definitely wants you to be happy?

Without that, it wouldn't have the power it has.

That's what I keep telling Paul LaClair.

It isn't clear from your description that the shared values that you claim are actually universal. You're running into same problem Paul encountered.

When you take the universal quality out of it (for example, by making yourself happy in my misery), you change it completely, and you can't do that within the framework of the humanist system, or the Golden Rule for that matter, which by the way is found in one form or another in all the major religions, not just Christianity.

If it's universal then I can't possibly change it, can I? Or if I did change it then it isn't universal.

Unless, of course, you've followed Paul's lead in re-defining "universal" to allow exceptions?

Does "universal" with exceptions have the same power as "universal" as it is normally understood?

In addition to that, you don't understand how evolutionary systems work.

In genetics, for example, a trait for congeniality may convey evolutionary advantages in some environments, but that's no longer true in a society of people who take advantage of congeniality to harm the congenial; in such a society, assuming it existed for thousands of years, a genetic predisposition for congeniality would be disfavored and selected out of the population.

What method would the non-congenials use to keep the congenials from perpetuating themselves in the gene pool?

That's got to be another Tale for the Ages from our KOTW skeptics.

Sure, if you had a society of people who gain their happiness at the expense of others, then the trait for happiness is evolutionarily unstable and won't be replicated. But if you have a society in which people respect each other's desire for happiness and go out of their way to try to help others in their quest to be happy, you have a stable society of happy people. And in social evolution it doesn't take thousands of years. Social evolution can happen very quickly. That illustrates the power of human choice. It's also part of the wisdom behind "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

If you think that rapid social evolution affects the frequency of genetic predispositions (other than via techniques such as Stalin's Ukrainian starvation policy or the Hussein family policy of the systematic rape of women--expanding the Hussein line well beyond the norm), then you sound positively Lamarkian and call your own understanding of evolution into question.

We're all aware that good people often get taken advantage of, but the point of a moral, ethical or legal system is to find ways to reward and encourage behavior that honors universally shared preferences like happiness. Good God, so to speak, do we really have to explain this to you?

Well, yeah. How else can I explain your errors to you unless you bother to share them publicly? I'm not a mind-reader.

Bryan, you've gotten your behind kicked on this point.

Okay, so you apparently think that the serial killer's preferences are wrong because his preferences are in the minority (thus making the majority view--against the normal use of the term--"universal")?

And that supposedly kicks my behind?

Enough already. Why are you so intent on arguing against the Golden Rule?

Why are you committing the fallacy of the complex question?

I'm not arguing against the Golden Rule, I'm arguing against the non-theistic foundations offered for the Golden Rule.

You've made the answer obvious: it doesn't require the existence of a god, and you're hell-bent on believing that there's a god. You'll make any argument to maintain that belief, even an argument about morally perfect and now sentient rocks. But those things are not reality; the fact that morality and ethics are grounded in human preferences is reality.

There's nothing left to do but laugh at you, Joe. Your statement above is based on a series of points you tried to make that have been refuted, where it's based on anything at all.

So maybe your current opinions about the existence of a god are wrong. To quite a few of us, that's pretty obvious.

Really? Based on what? The same type of non-argument nonsense you posted above?

Answer the question, Joe. Does the serial killer want his victim to be happy?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bryan wrote:

“The intrinsic so-called "values" of good health and happiness only apply to one for whom it is intrinsic, AFAICT. How is it intrinsically good for me if Joe Smith is healthy and happy?”

and

“How is the serial murderer's enjoyment of serial killing less real than the grounding of your value system?”

Use your imagination Bryan. Surely your religious fanaticism hasn’t erased all your human empathy and decency has it? Or are you really that selfish?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DingoDave, pleased to see you're out of re-hab. Good luck.

[Guest Guest]

Bryan wrote:

“The intrinsic so-called "values" of good health and happiness only apply to one for whom it is intrinsic, AFAICT. How is it intrinsically good for me if Joe Smith is healthy and happy?”

and

“How is the serial murderer's enjoyment of serial killing less real than the grounding of your value system?”

Use your imagination Bryan. Surely your religious fanaticism hasn’t erased all your human empathy and decency has it? Or are you really that selfish?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know whether he's that selfish, but he's definitely that stubborn. And that ignorant.

[Bryan]

“The intrinsic so-called "values" of good health and happiness only apply to one for whom it is intrinsic, AFAICT. How is it intrinsically good for me if Joe Smith is healthy and happy?”

and

“How is the serial murderer's enjoyment of serial killing less real than the grounding of your value system?”

Use your imagination Bryan. Surely your religious fanaticism hasn’t erased all your human empathy and decency has it? Or are you really that selfish?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DingoDave appears daft.

Rewind for a second, D-Dave. The clowns on your side are trying to argue that shared universal values are intrinsic.

I'm trying to illustrate that wanting another entity to be healthy and happy is not an intrinsic value

[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic'>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic

In other words, it is nonsense to suppose that my value of something outside myself can be defined as intrinsic to me. Your suggestion that I use my "imagination" could pass for an invitation to think illogically for the sake of accepting the view championed by your side.

I'll illustrated a number of times that the desire for personal health and happiness (which is arguably an intrinsic value) is not a shared value, but a parallel value. It's not a shared value because two different people who want their own health and happiness are not therefore required to desire the happiness of others.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest DingoDave]

DingoDave, pleased to see you're out of re-hab. Good luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry to see that you haven't yet booked yourself in 2dim.

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote:

“Rewind for a second, D-Dave. The clowns on your side are trying to argue that shared universal values are intrinsic.

I'm trying to illustrate that wanting another entity to be healthy and happy is not an intrinsic value

[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic'>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic

In other words, it is nonsense to suppose that my value of something outside myself can be defined as intrinsic to me. Your suggestion that I use my "imagination" could pass for an invitation to think illogically for the sake of accepting the view championed by your side.

I'll illustrated a number of times that the desire for personal health and happiness (which is arguably an intrinsic value) is not a shared value, but an parallel value. It's not a shared value because two different people who want their own health and happiness are not therefore required to desire the happiness of others.”

Serial killers, and other kinds of psychopaths are physically and functionally disabled. They are sick and malfunctioning human beings, much the same as a person who suffers from depression, or from Tourette’s syndrome, or from obsessive/compulsive disorder.

There are good reasons to believe that serial killers perform their acts, not so much for personal ‘enjoyment’, but rather in order to relieve certain powerful compulsions within their brains which cause them pain and anguish, and which can only be relieved by performing hideous acts upon other people, and which they simply do not have the mental ability to resist.

These people themselves suffer in ways, which we normally functioning people can scarcely imagine.

Psychopaths should be looked upon as faulty machines, in much the same way as we would look upon a car with faulty brakes or a faulty engine management system. The fault could have arisen through a failure in some part of the manufacturing process, or as a result of simple ‘wear and tear’.

Intrinsic in the vast majority of human beings is a desire to ‘live and let live’, or as your forefathers phrased it, a desire for ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.

This kind of behaviour is the overwhelmingly predominant mindset among the human beings whom I know. Part of what makes us successful as a species is an inherent desire to get along with our neighbours. We must therefore be concerned with the welfare of the people around us in order to enjoy a healthy and successful society. Your semantic quibbling about the definition of the word intrinsic cuts no ice with me. Your argument appears to be nothing more than pedantic stubbornness, which you seem to be very prone to.

Presenting what is a comparatively rare aberration of the human brain (as in serial killers), in order to somehow justify the psychotic behaviour of the god you worship, displays a desperation which naturally comes with attempting to defend the indefensible.

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

Serial killers, and other kinds of psychopaths are physically and functionally disabled. They are sick and malfunctioning human beings, much the same as a person who suffers from depression, or from Tourette’s syndrome, or from obsessive/compulsive disorder.

You say that as though it's a bad thing (fallaciously begs the question, doesn't it?)!

There are good reasons to believe that serial killers perform their acts, not so much for personal ‘enjoyment’, but rather in order to relieve certain powerful compulsions within their brains which cause them pain and anguish, and which can only be relieved by performing hideous acts upon other people, and which they simply do not have the mental ability to resist.

I don't suppose you can be troubled to support your claim?

And in any case, why isn't the avoidance of pain and anguish a corollary to achieving enjoyment?

These people themselves suffer in ways, which we normally functioning people can scarcely imagine.

... though we can credit DingoDave for at least putting his imagination to work in a manner designed to support his argument.

Psychopaths should be looked upon as faulty machines, in much the same way as we would look upon a car with faulty brakes or a faulty engine management system.

In order to do that, you have to assume a moral purpose (analogous to the purpose of a braking system). That will immediately result in a fallacy of begging the question.

Is it wrong to have a car with no brakes?

The fault could have arisen through a failure in some part of the manufacturing process, or as a result of simple ‘wear and tear’.

So you're telling me that breakdowns in the universal morality are perfectly natural?

Intrinsic in the vast majority of human beings is a desire to ‘live and let live’, or as your forefathers phrased it, a desire for  ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.

"Live and let live" is incoherent in terms of intrinsic value at the individual level. I'd suggest you try "inherent" as a substitute, but of course that steers us right into the problem of the many exceptions to the rule.

Appealing to naturalistic breakdowns in the system of morality doesn't explain away the problem. How do you know the breakdowns don't reflect the ideal?

This kind of behaviour is the overwhelmingly predominant mindset among the human beings whom I know. Part of what makes us successful as a species is an inherent desire to get along with our neighbours. We must therefore be concerned with the welfare of the people around us in order to enjoy a healthy and successful society.

Nature abounds with alternative success strategies. Those strategies are not right for humanity because ...?

Your semantic quibbling about the definition of the word intrinsic cuts no ice with me. Your argument appears to be nothing more than pedantic stubbornness, which you seem to be very prone to.

Don't be such a baby. I don't apologize for using "intrinsic" correctly, and rather than trying to derail the argument with the precision of usage I offered a more accurate alternative.

Clarity is a good thing in an argument--unless your goal is to dodge and obfuscate.

Presenting what is a comparatively rare aberration of the human brain (as in serial killers), in order to somehow justify the psychotic behaviour of the god you worship, displays a desperation which naturally comes with attempting to defend the indefensible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're sure you're not full as a boot when you're posting to KOTW?

There's no attempt to justify anything about god, here. This is about showing that atheists have no philosophical foundation for morality.

Guess how you look when you sink to the type of cheesy ad hom you left us with?

Legless.

[Guest Tom]

Use your imagination Bryan. Surely your religious fanaticism hasn’t erased all your human empathy and decency has it? Or are you really that selfish?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DingoDave appears daft.

Rewind for a second, D-Dave. The clowns on your side are trying to argue that shared universal values are intrinsic.

I'm trying to illustrate that wanting another entity to be healthy and happy is not an intrinsic value

[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic'>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic

In other words, it is nonsense to suppose that my value of something outside myself can be defined as intrinsic to me. Your suggestion that I use my "imagination" could pass for an invitation to think illogically for the sake of accepting the view championed by your side.

I'll illustrated a number of times that the desire for personal health and happiness (which is arguably an intrinsic value) is not a shared value, but a parallel value. It's not a shared value because two different people who want their own health and happiness are not therefore required to desire the happiness of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another Bryan shell game. Each person's happiness is intrinsic to that individual. Recognition of the fact is what makes empathy, and thereby an objectively grounded morality and ethics, possible.

[Guest Tom]

Part of what makes us successful as a species is an inherent desire to get along with our neighbours. We must therefore be concerned with the welfare of the people around us in order to enjoy a healthy and successful society. Your semantic quibbling about the definition of the word intrinsic cuts no ice with me. Your argument appears to be nothing more than pedantic stubbornness, which you seem to be very prone to. 

Presenting what is a comparatively rare aberration of the human brain (as in serial killers), in order to somehow justify the psychotic behaviour of the god you worship, displays a desperation which naturally comes with attempting to defend the indefensible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well put. Kudos to Dave.

[Bryan]

DingoDave appears daft.

Rewind for a second, D-Dave.  The clowns on your side are trying to argue that shared universal values are intrinsic.

I'm trying to illustrate that wanting another entity to be healthy and happy is not an intrinsic value

[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic'>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic

In other words, it is nonsense to suppose that my value of something outside myself can be defined as intrinsic to me.  Your suggestion that I use my "imagination" could pass for an invitation to think illogically for the sake of accepting the view championed by your side.

I'll illustrated a number of times that the desire for personal health and happiness (which is arguably an intrinsic value) is not a shared value, but a parallel value.  It's not a shared value because two different people who want their own health and happiness are not therefore required to desire the happiness of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another Bryan shell game.

Another genius who quotes others at length without addressing what they wrote.

Each person's happiness is intrinsic to that individual.

Happiness is only intrinsic to the individual if that happiness has nothing to do with the reality outside that individual. A person might well be happy with himself, which might qualify as intrinsic happiness, but if the person is being tortured with a pair of hot tongs we have a right to wonder whether or not the person is intrinsically happy at any given moment.

You, Tom, have no clue what you're talking about.

Recognition of the fact is what makes empathy, and thereby an objectively grounded morality and ethics, possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If people really were intrinsically happy, then nothing we could do would affect their intrinsic happiness. It wouldn't matter how we treated them.

Your argument is idiotic. If only you could effectively dismiss the criticisms by simply labeling them as a "shell game" ...

Maybe part of the problem is people on your side who use words in their arguments without knowing what those words mean?

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote: (concerning serial killers)

You say that as though it's a bad thing (fallaciously begs the question, doesn't it?)!

Not at all. Let’s take a look at the definition of the word ‘bad’ shall we?

noun: that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

adjective: below average in quality or performance

adjective: feeling physical discomfort or pain

adjective: not working properly

adjective: having undesirable or negative qualities

adjective: capable of harming

adjective: physically unsound or diseased

adjective: characterized by wickedness or immorality

adjective: non-standard

And in any case, why isn't the avoidance of pain and anguish a corollary to achieving enjoyment?

For the same reason that not putting my hand on a hot stove is not the same thing as intentionally performing an action for personal enjoyment, such as playing a sport or cooking a good meal.

In order to do that, you have to assume a moral purpose (analogous to the purpose of a braking system). That will immediately result in a fallacy of begging the question. Is it wrong to have a car with no brakes?

I said faulty brakes. Not no brakes. Besides which, the existance of brakes on a car serves a utilitarian purpose, not a moral purpose.

And yes it would be wrong to drive a car with no brakes, because of the danger it poses to both the driver and to other innocent people. Normally functioning individuals would not normally choose to drive around in a car with no brakes for reasons of self-preservation, as well as consideration for their fellow humans.

So you're telling me that breakdowns in the universal morality are perfectly natural?

What do you mean by universal?

The word universal as I would use it in this context, and as others have used it, could be described as 'those values which the vast majority of healthy, normally functioning human beings view as being desirable'.

"Live and let live" is incoherent in terms of intrinsic value at the individual level. I'd suggest you try "inherent" as a substitute, but of course that steers us right into the problem of the many exceptions to the rule. Appealing to naturalistic breakdowns in the system of morality doesn't explain away the problem. How do you know the breakdowns don't reflect the ideal?

Fine, let’s use the word inherent instead of intrinsic, if it makes you happy. It makes no difference to me what you call it.

I don’t see a problem with exceptions to the rule. It’s you who has the problem of explaining evil (the act of causing harm, or the desire or intention to cause harm), not me.

Nature abounds with alternative success strategies. Those strategies are not right for humanity because ...?

Because the vast majority of human beings object to being robbed, or tortured, or murdered.

There's no attempt to justify anything about god, here. This is about showing that atheists have no philosophical foundation for morality.

I was under the impression that this whole silly argument was for you to somehow justify the endless torture of billions of human beings in Hell.

As Paul said in post#4- “I told you the urgency. When you define justice like that, you make injustice easy. You practically invite it.”

And as Strife said in post#6- “it makes no sense for a god that is both loving and omnipotent to even allow such a place to exist."

And,- “Infinite punishment for finite transgressions isn't fair. Even by your own definition, Hell fails the 'justice test’.”

I think Melanie hit the nail on the head in post#84 when she wrote- “Your alternative conception is to make up a god and imagine that "he" provides the framework. But all you're doing is projecting your own value judgments into this imaginary god.”

Your callous disregard for the hypothetical suffering of billions of people is abhorrent to me and I dare say, to many others. The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?

Here's a clue.

“A psychopath has no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation, though superficially they seem like a normal person. They can be charming and polite on the surface, but this only disguises their lack of empathy. They seem egocentric and lack insight of any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative, and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone showing any kind of meaningful love. They typically never perform any action unless they determine it can be beneficial for themselves…

They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience. However, they understand that society expects them to behave in a conscientious manner, and therefore they mimic this behavior when it suits their needs.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Sound familiar?

[Guest Melanie]

QUOTE(DingoDave @ Jul 31 2007, 08:06 PM)

Bryan wrote:

Serial killers, and other kinds of psychopaths are physically and functionally disabled. They are sick and malfunctioning human beings, much the same as a person who suffers from depression, or from Tourette’s syndrome, or from obsessive/compulsive disorder.

You say that as though it's a bad thing (fallaciously begs the question, doesn't it?)!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Your daughter is a murderous psychopath --- not that there's anything wrong with that."

The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them. Yeah, these are bad things on their face.

Bryan - what a knucklehead!

[Guest Melanie]

Another Bryan shell game.

Another genius who quotes others at length without addressing what they wrote.

Happiness is only intrinsic to the individual if that happiness has nothing to do with the reality outside that individual. A person might well be happy with himself, which might qualify as intrinsic happiness, but if the person is being tortured with a pair of hot tongs we have a right to wonder whether or not the person is intrinsically happy at any given moment.

You, Tom, have no clue what you're talking about.

If people really were intrinsically happy, then nothing we could do would affect their intrinsic happiness. It wouldn't matter how we treated them.

Your argument is idiotic. If only you could effectively dismiss the criticisms by simply labeling them as a "shell game" ...

Maybe part of the problem is people on your side who use words in their arguments without knowing what those words mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There goes Bryan again, playing with words. Happiness is intrinsic in the sense that each of us experiences it individually, within ourselves. It doesn't mean that others can't make someone unhappy, by burning them all over their bodies for example. And because happiness is an experience we can describe to others, and everyone has experienced at some time, it is an objective basis for morals and ethics.

Bryan's argument against this is just stupid. He is so far backed into a corner that now he resorts to claiming one person's actions cannot make another person unhappy. Does that also apply to his sentient rocks? There's no point trying to have a discussion with someone like this.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bryan wrote: (concerning serial killers)

Not at all. Let’s take a look at the definition of the word ‘bad’ shall we?

noun:  that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

adjective:  below average in quality or performance

adjective:  feeling physical discomfort or pain

adjective:  not working properly

adjective:  having undesirable or negative qualities

adjective:  capable of harming

adjective:  physically unsound or diseased

adjective:  characterized by wickedness or immorality

adjective:  non-standard

For the same reason that not putting my hand on a hot stove is not the same thing as intentionally performing an action for personal enjoyment, such as playing a sport or cooking a good meal.

I said faulty brakes. Not no brakes. Besides which, the existance of brakes on a car serves a utilitarian purpose, not a moral purpose.

And yes it would be wrong to drive a car with no brakes, because of the danger it poses to both the driver and to other innocent people. Normally functioning individuals would not normally choose to drive around in a car with no brakes for reasons of self-preservation, as well as consideration for their fellow humans.

What do you mean by universal?

The word universal as I would use it in this context, and as others have used it, could be described as 'those values which the vast majority of healthy, normally functioning human beings view as being desirable'.

Fine, let’s use the word inherent instead of intrinsic, if it makes you happy. It makes no difference to me what you call it.

I don’t see a problem with exceptions to the rule. It’s you who has the problem of explaining evil (the act of causing harm, or the desire or intention to cause harm), not me.

Because the vast majority of human beings object to being robbed, or tortured, or murdered.

I was under the impression that this whole silly argument was for you to somehow justify the endless torture of billions of human beings in Hell.

As Paul said in post#4- “I told you the urgency. When you define justice like that, you make injustice easy. You practically invite it.”

And as Strife said in post#6- “it makes no sense for a god that is both loving and omnipotent to even allow such a place to exist."

And,- “Infinite punishment for finite transgressions isn't fair. Even by your own definition, Hell fails the 'justice test’.”

I think Melanie hit the nail on the head in post#84 when she wrote- “Your alternative conception is to make up a god and imagine that "he" provides the framework. But all you're doing is projecting your own value judgments into this imaginary god.”

Your callous disregard for the hypothetical suffering of billions of people is abhorrent to me and I dare say, to many others. The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?

Here's a clue.

“A psychopath has no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation, though superficially they seem like a normal person. They can be charming and polite on the surface, but this only disguises their lack of empathy. They seem egocentric and lack insight of any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative, and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone showing any kind of meaningful love. They typically never perform any action unless they determine it can be beneficial for themselves…

They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience. However, they understand that society expects them to behave in a conscientious manner, and therefore they mimic this behavior when it suits their needs.” -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Sound familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you on ??

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote: (concerning serial killers)

Not at all. Let’s take a look at the definition of the word ‘bad’ shall we?

Why? Did you have trouble figuring out that I was talking about morally bad despite the fact that is was our topic?

noun:  that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

adjective:  below average in quality or performance

adjective:  feeling physical discomfort or pain

adjective:  not working properly

adjective:  having undesirable or negative qualities

adjective:  capable of harming

adjective:  physically unsound or diseased

adjective:  characterized by wickedness or immorality

adjective:  non-standard

So, DDave, which definition do you think saves you from the fallacy of equivocation without conceding my point?

For the same reason that not putting my hand on a hot stove is not the same thing as intentionally performing an action for personal enjoyment, such as playing a sport or cooking a good meal.

Why couldn't not putting your hand on the stove be a corollary to cooking a good meal (notice how you switched to "not the same thing"?)?

I said faulty brakes. Not no brakes.

I said no brakes, not faulty brakes.

It's pretty much that you'll take any excuse to dodge a question and avoid socratic dialog, isn't it?

When you insist on the term "faulty brakes" you implicitly (fallaciously) beg the question by inserting your conclusion into the premise. You have assumed that not being able to stop via brakes is a fault.

Besides which, the existance of brakes on a car serves a utilitarian purpose, not a moral purpose.

Did you ever wonder why there is a moral philosophy known as "utilitarianism"?

And yes it would be wrong to drive a car with no brakes, because of the danger it poses to both the driver and to other innocent people.

You appear to be assuming that endangering other people is wrong. Are you showing off your mastery of circular logic?

Normally functioning individuals would not normally choose to drive around in a car with no brakes for reasons of self-preservation, as well as consideration for their fellow humans.

And that makes it wrong?

What do you mean by universal?

1,2,3,9.

I assume you mean 8 (with emphasis on "most" instead of "all").

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universal

The word universal as I would use it in this context, and as others have used it, could be described as 'those values which the vast majority of healthy, normally functioning human beings view as being desirable'.

It's certainly not in the dictionary in that formulation. Accordingly, you should use "vast majority" instead of "universal" in order to avoid misleading the audience.

And I think it's reasonable to ask you to give me your best approximation of just how vast the majority needs to be for something to be morally right. Eighty percent? Ninety-nine percent? As low as 55 percent?

Fine, let’s use the word inherent instead of intrinsic, if it makes you happy. It makes no difference to me what you call it.

It's not like it's in your best interest to use words accurately and clearly.

I don’t see a problem with exceptions to the rule. It’s you who has the problem of explaining evil (the act of causing harm, or the desire or intention to cause harm), not me.

I think you believe in the existence of evil, otherwise you wouldn't think twice about cars with no brakes.

If you believe in the existence of evil then your worldview must account for it somehow, or else your worldview is incomplete.

So, you can either deny the existence of evil (what's morality without the existence of moral evil, again?) or you can try to explain it in terms of your worldview (or you can admit that you can't explain it).

Nature abounds with alternative success strategies. Those strategies are not right for humanity because ...?

Because the vast majority of human beings object to being robbed, or tortured, or murdered.

Vast majority opinion=(morally) right?

What if one day the sun emitted a special wavelength of light that altered our genetics. Within six generations, the vast majority of humans believe it is right to rape and kill their fellow humans. Under those conditions, raping and killing would be morally just actions, correct?

I was under the impression that this whole silly argument was for you to somehow justify the endless torture of billions of human beings in Hell.

That's easily done to the satisfaction of anyone who thinks that "vast majority opinion=morally right"--if they are (il)logically consistent.

As Paul said in post#4- “I told you the urgency. When you define justice like that, you make injustice easy. You practically invite it.”

And as Strife said in post#6- “it makes no sense for a god that is both loving and omnipotent to even allow such a place to exist."

And,- “Infinite punishment for finite transgressions isn't fair. Even by your own definition, Hell fails the 'justice test’.”

None of them have any logical standing for their assertions. If Strife heard his own argument from an adversary (the second one you mention), he'd call it a fallacy of incredulity.

The last one is an acceptable logical approach, at least in terms of the attempt, but the chances are exceptionally high that Strife has no intention on using "[my] own definition."

For some reason, DDave skips over the URLs to which Paul referred in the thread title. Paul has repeatedly fumbled attempts to make a case for human-based morality.

I think Melanie hit the nail on the head in post#84 when she wrote- “Your alternative conception is to make up a god and imagine that "he" provides the framework. But all you're doing is projecting your own value judgments into this imaginary god.”

And you completely ignored the fact that my arguments against Paul's human-based framework for morality do not and need not reference god?

What explains your blindness?

Your callous disregard for the hypothetical suffering of billions of people is abhorrent to me and I dare say, to many others.

Well, if you need a fallacious appeal to outrage to support what you've already said then I guess we can check that one off ...

I have real concern for those who may suffer the torment of hell. I recommend Jesus as the remedy.

You tell them don't worry about it. It couldn't possibly happen to you. But I'm the callous one.

Admit it: You're just making a cheap appeal to outrage.

The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?

That's like my saying that you enthusiastically support the doctrine of "survival of the fittest." In other words, another cheap appeal to outrage.

Here's a clue.

“A psychopath has no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation, though superficially they seem like a normal person. They can be charming and polite on the surface, but this only disguises their lack of empathy. They seem egocentric and lack insight of any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative, and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone showing any kind of meaningful love. They typically never perform any action unless they determine it can be beneficial for themselves…

They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience. However, they understand that society expects them to behave in a conscientious manner, and therefore they mimic this behavior when it suits their needs.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Sound familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, yeah, it's familiar. That's like your third straight cheap appeal to outrage (albeit it also qualifies as a fallacious ad hominem).

Explain why rationalists hate logic so much?

Notice the common thread on your side? Fumble the logic, then attack the opposition based on the morality you failed to establish?

[Bryan]

There goes Bryan again, playing with words. Happiness is intrinsic in the sense that each of us experiences it individually, within ourselves.

You're the one playing with words, Melanie.

Your use of the term "intrinsic" is novel, not counting its usage by those who don't know what they're talking about (IOW, it's nonstandard).

belonging to a thing by its very nature

If you're happy by nature (in the sense of "intrinsic") then you can't be unhappy.

It doesn't mean that others can't make someone unhappy, by burning them all over their bodies for example.

Actually it does, except when used outside its normal usage.

And because happiness is an experience we can describe to others, and everyone has experienced at some time, it is an objective basis for morals and ethics.

Can we pretty much say the same thing about sweating (an experience we can describe to others, something everyone has experienced at some time)?

Bryan's argument against this is just stupid. He is so far backed into a corner that now he resorts to claiming one person's actions cannot make another person unhappy.

Nifty! Another straw man! And just look how distorted he is!

Intrinsic happiness is not capable of being altered by externals--unless you're playing with words.

Does that also apply to his sentient rocks? There's no point trying to have a discussion with someone like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you were any more ironic the Chinese would be trying to import you to make you into steel.

[Bryan]

"Your daughter is a murderous psychopath --- not that there's anything wrong with that."

The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them. Yeah, these are bad things on their face.

Bryan - what a knucklehead!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Poor Melanie doesn't understand the fallacy of begging the question.

She joins the battle unarmed.

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote:

Why? Did you have trouble figuring out that I was talking about morally bad despite the fact that is was our topic?

noun:  that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

adjective:  below average in quality or performance

adjective:  feeling physical discomfort or pain

adjective:  not working properly

adjective:  having undesirable or negative qualities

adjective:  capable of harming

adjective:  physically unsound or diseased

adjective:  characterized by wickedness or immorality

adjective:  non-standard

So, DDave, which definition do you think saves you from the fallacy of equivocation without conceding my point?

In the broad context in which I quoted those definitions, the whole lot. But if I had to chose just those definitions which describe why I believe that Serial killing is immoral, then I would probably go for,

- that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

and

- having undesirable or negative qualities

and

- capable of harming

When you insist on the term "faulty brakes" you implicitly (fallaciously) beg the question by inserting your conclusion into the premise. You have assumed that not being able to stop via brakes is a fault.

Of course having defective brakes constitutes a fault! Except perhaps in your own little fantasy world. Just try arguing something as ridiculous as that with the vehicle safety inspector the next time your car is in the DMV workshop for it's compulsory annual safety inspection, and see how sympathetic he's likely to be towards such an absurd argument. I dare you.

Did you ever wonder why there is a moral philosophy known as "utilitarianism"?

So now you want me to argue the moral philosophy behind faulty vehicular braking systems?

Spare me the agony you twit!

You appear to be assuming that endangering other people is wrong. Are you showing off your mastery of circular logic?

People generally object to getting unnecessarily run over, or having their property smashed. That's a good enough reason for me to assume that needlessly endangering other people is wrong. 'Do not do unto others that which you would not wish to be done unto you', is all I should really need to say about the subject.

Oh, that's right, I forgot that you apparently reject the inherent utility of the golden rule.

I wrote:

Fine, let’s use the word inherent instead of intrinsic, if it makes you happy. It makes no difference to me what you call it.

You responded:

It's not like it's in your best interest to use words accurately and clearly.

I didn't use the word 'universal' in the first place, and in fact I probably wouldn't have used it at all in this context. If you carefully read my original post you'll find that I did in fact use the word inherent, which you seem to have overlooked. Here's the line in question.

"Part of what makes us successful as a species is an inherent desire to get along with our neighbours."

But I did understand what those who used the word 'universal', meant by it. If you didn’t, then that's your problem, not mine. You seem to enjoy playing word games just for the sake of it, don't you?

You are being intentionally obtuse as usual. It's very annoying. You would be classified as a boorish troll on just about any other message board besides this one.

Allow me to give you a piece of unsolicited advice Bryan. There are some things more important than mere words. Words are cheap. Actions speak louder than words. You seem to have lost sight of that fact, somewhere in amongst your maze of pedantic, semantic philosophical quibblings.

If I may be so unholy as to quote a line from the gospels: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matt.23:23-24).

You are a ‘Pharisee’ of the highest order Bryan. Or would it be more accurate to describe you as a ‘Scribe’?

I think you believe in the existence of evil, otherwise you wouldn't think twice about cars with no brakes. If you believe in the existence of evil then your worldview must account for it somehow, or else your worldview is incomplete.

I do believe in evil, but not in some sort of mystical superstitious way that you apparently do. I don't view evil as some sort of malignant fog floating around in the cosmos. The dictionary definition suits me just fine.

-Evil

noun: morally objectionable behaviour

noun: the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice (Example: "Attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")

noun: that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (Example: "The evil that men do lives after them")

adjective: tending to cause great harm

adjective: morally bad or wrong (Example: "Evil purposes")

adjective: having the nature of vice

adjective: having or exerting a malignant influence

-Malevolent

adjective: wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; arising from intense ill will or hatred (Example: "A gossipy malevolent old woman")

adjective: having or exerting a malignant influence

Paul has repeatedly fumbled attempts to make a case for human-based morality…

And you completely ignored the fact that my arguments against Paul's human-based framework for morality do not and need not reference god?

Then why have the argument at all? If it’s so obvious to you that that people can and do behave morally without superstitious beliefs, then why attempt to dispute the concept of the inherent human desire for ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, along with empathy? I believe that are lying Bryan (whether implicitly or explicitly), and I’m not buying it. In fact, I don’t believe that you could lie straight in bed!

I have real concern for those who may suffer the torment of hell. I recommend Jesus as the remedy. Admit it: You're just making a cheap appeal to outrage.

If you have so much concern for human welfare, then protest to Yahweh in the strongest possible terms, about the hideous fate that awaits billions of people, according to your world view, whether they have ever had the ‘gospel’ presented to them or not.

I wrote:

"The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?"

Bryan responded:

"That's like my saying that you enthusiastically support the doctrine of "survival of the fittest." In other words, another cheap appeal to outrage."

Evolution through natural selection is a demonstrated fact, which is largely beyond human control. We as humans do not in fact practice a ‘survival of the fittest’ policy amongst ourselves, as should be obvious by the existence of hospitals, social welfare systems and charities, along with many other institutions set up for the express purpose of assisting the weak and infirm. Furthermore, it is light years removed from the concept of an intelligent, intentional being, wilfully inflicting unending pain and suffering on other creatures for no good reason, and without any apparent remedial or redemptive purpose.

Some things deserve our outrage Bryan. For example, the 9/11 murders at the world trade centre, the Holocaust of the Jews during the Nazi regime, the genocide in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the massacre of millions by Pohl Pot, and the doctrine of Hellfire, just to name a few. If we as human beings lose our ability to feel outrage in the face of horrific suffering and injustices such as these, then our societies won’t be worth living in. I for one do not feel ashamed for feeling outrage at these kinds of behaviours. I’m sorry to learn that you do not agree with me.

Somewhere along the line, your religious beliefs seem to have completely erased any vestiges of common sense and human decency. That’s a very sad thing in my opinion.

[Guest Paul]

Bryan wrote:

In the broad context in which I quoted those definitions, the whole lot. But if I had to chose just those definitions which describe why I believe that Serial killing is immoral, then I would probably go for,

- that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

and

-  having undesirable or negative qualities

and

- capable of harming

Of course having defective brakes constitutes a fault! Except perhaps in your own little fantasy world. Just try arguing something as ridiculous as that with the vehicle safety inspector the next time your car is in the DMV workshop for it's compulsory annual safety inspection, and see how sympathetic he's likely to be towards such an absurd argument. I dare you.

So now you want me to argue the moral philosophy behind faulty vehicular braking systems?

Spare me the agony you twit!

People generally object to getting unnecessarily run over, or having their property smashed. That's a good enough reason for me to assume that needlessly endangering other people is wrong. 'Do not do unto others that which you would not wish to be done unto you', is all I should really need to say about the subject.

Oh, that's right, I forgot that you apparently reject the inherent utility of the golden rule.

I wrote:

You responded:

I didn't use the word 'universal' in the first place, and in fact I probably wouldn't have used it at all in this context. If you carefully read my original post you'll find that I did in fact use the word inherent, which you seem to have overlooked. Here's the line in question.

"Part of what makes us successful as a species is an inherent desire to get along with our neighbours."

But I did understand what those who used the word 'universal', meant by it. If you didn’t, then that's your problem, not mine. You seem to enjoy playing word games just for the sake of it, don't you?

You are being intentionally obtuse as usual. It's very annoying. You would be classified as a boorish troll on just about any other message board besides this one.

Allow me to give you a piece of unsolicited advice Bryan. There are some things more important than mere words. Words are cheap. Actions speak louder than words. You seem to have lost sight of that fact, somewhere in amongst your maze of pedantic, semantic philosophical quibblings.

If I may be so unholy as to quote a line from the gospels: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matt.23:23-24).

You are a ‘Pharisee’ of the highest order Bryan. Or would it be more accurate to describe you as a ‘Scribe’?

I do believe in evil, but not in some sort of mystical superstitious way that you apparently do. I don't view evil as some sort of malignant fog floating around in the cosmos. The dictionary definition suits me just fine.

-Evil

noun:  morally objectionable behaviour

noun:  the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice (Example: "Attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")

noun:  that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (Example: "The evil that men do lives after them")

adjective:  tending to cause great harm

adjective:  morally bad or wrong (Example: "Evil purposes")

adjective:  having the nature of vice

adjective:  having or exerting a malignant influence

-Malevolent

adjective:  wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; arising from intense ill will or hatred (Example: "A gossipy malevolent old woman")

adjective:  having or exerting a malignant influence

Then why have the argument at all? If it’s so obvious to you that that people can and do behave morally without superstitious beliefs, then why attempt to dispute the concept of the inherent human desire for ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, along with empathy? I believe that are lying Bryan (whether implicitly or explicitly), and I’m not buying it. In fact, I don’t believe that you could lie straight in bed!

If you have so much concern for human welfare, then protest to Yahweh in the strongest possible terms, about the hideous fate that awaits billions of people, according to your world view, whether they have ever had the ‘gospel’ presented to them or not.

I wrote:

"The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?"

Bryan responded:

"That's like my saying that you enthusiastically support the doctrine of "survival of the fittest." In other words, another cheap appeal to outrage."

Evolution through natural selection is a demonstrated fact, which is largely beyond human control. We as humans do not in fact practice a ‘survival of the fittest’ policy amongst ourselves, as should be obvious by the existence of hospitals, social welfare systems and charities, along with many other institutions set up for the express purpose of assisting the weak and infirm. Furthermore, it is light years removed from the concept of an intelligent, intentional being, wilfully inflicting unending pain and suffering on other creatures for no good reason, and without any apparent remedial or redemptive purpose.

Some things deserve our outrage Bryan. For example, the 9/11 murders at the world trade centre, the Holocaust of the Jews during the Nazi regime, the genocide in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the massacre of millions by Pohl Pot, and the doctrine of Hellfire, just to name a few. If we as human beings lose our ability to feel outrage in the face of horrific suffering and injustices such as these, then our societies won’t be worth living in. I for one do not feel ashamed for feeling outrage at these kinds of behaviours. I’m sorry to learn that you do not agree with me.   

Somewhere along the line, your religious beliefs seem to have completely erased any vestiges of common sense and human decency. That’s a very sad thing in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is common theme in the most hard-line fundamentalist religions. They get completely lost in their dogmas, which have no basis in fact and are founded entirely in the wish to believe. They end up being destructive.

[Bryan]

So, DDave, which definition do you think saves you from the fallacy of equivocation without conceding my point?

In the broad context in which I quoted those definitions, the whole lot. But if I had to chose just those definitions which describe why I believe that Serial killing is immoral, then I would probably go for,

- that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

and

- having undesirable or negative qualities

and

- capable of harming

DingoDave has proposed his answer--however garbled.

Let's review the issue.

Bryan:I'll illustrated a number of times that the desire for personal health and happiness (which is arguably an intrinsic value) is not a shared value, but a parallel value. It's not a shared value because two different people who want their own health and happiness are not therefore required to desire the happiness of others.

DDave:

Serial killers, and other kinds of psychopaths are physically and functionally disabled. They are sick and malfunctioning human beings, much the same as a person who suffers from depression, or from Tourette’s syndrome, or from obsessive/compulsive disorder.

Bryan:

You say that as though it's a bad thing (fallaciously begs the question, doesn't it?)!

So, DingoDave (DumboDave would be more apt) goes from asserting a "universal" morality (where by "universal" he means 'the vast majority' when pressed)--and he did this apparently defending the notion of "intrinsic" human values. Certainly he failed in that pursuit.

Then, when I challenge him as to why the minority view is actually and truly morally wrong, he argues, in effect, that the minority view is bad.

How does he know it's bad without begging the question?

Because their actions are below the standard for ethics? That begs the question (fallaciously).

Below expectations? How do we know the expectations are morally correct? That also begs the question.

Having undesirable or negative qualities? In a conversation on morality, isn't that an attempt to equivocate unless it's just repeating what was meant with the first definition (the one(s) that fallaciously beg the question)??

Capable of harming? Again, unless this answer refers to harm in the sense of a moral wrong, isn't it an equivocation? And if it refers to moral harm, hasn't the question been begged?

The type of idiocy DDave is peddling does not deserve to be addressed. Nobody should be falling for it regardless of whether or not I waste my time answering it.

Of course having defective brakes constitutes a fault! Except perhaps in your own little fantasy world. Just try arguing something as ridiculous as that with the vehicle safety inspector the next time your car is in the DMV workshop for it's compulsory annual safety inspection, and see how sympathetic he's likely to be towards such an absurd argument. I dare you.

So now you want me to argue the moral philosophy behind faulty vehicular braking systems?

Spare me the agony you twit!

People generally object to getting unnecessarily run over, or having their property smashed. That's a good enough reason for me to assume that needlessly endangering other people is wrong. 'Do not do unto others that which you would not wish to be done unto you', is all I should really need to say about the subject.

Oh, that's right, I forgot that you apparently reject the inherent utility of the golden rule.

Note DingoDave's fallacious appeal to the people ("People generally object ... That's a good enough reason for me to assume ...").

Yes, I do reject the "inherent" utility of the Golden Rule, since the Golden Rule itself presupposes a moral framework outside of itself.

A masochist doing unto others as he would have them do unto him would doubtless result in DingoDave's objection, since people generally object to others doing them violence.

DingoDave, it's amusing at first when you cheerfully laud such ridiculously self-contradictory notions--but after a while it's just boring.

I wrote:

You responded:

I didn't use the word 'universal' in the first place, and in fact I probably wouldn't have used it at all in this context.

I was referring to your use of the term "intrinsic," not to your use of the term "universal" (though you've been imprecise in both cases, to be sure).

DingoDave

Fine, let’s use the word inherent instead of intrinsic, if it makes you happy. It makes no difference to me what you call it.

Bryan

It's not like it's in your best interest to use words accurately and clearly.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=62524

If you carefully read my original post you'll find that I did in fact use the word inherent, which you seem to have overlooked. Here's the line in question.

"Part of what makes us successful as a species is an inherent desire to get along with our neighbours."

Nice try:

"Intrinsic in the vast majority of human beings is a desire to ‘live and let live’, or as your forefathers phrased it, a desire for ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’."

"Your semantic quibbling about the definition of the word intrinsic cuts no ice with me. Your argument appears to be nothing more than pedantic stubbornness, which you seem to be very prone to."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=62242

<bold emphasis added>

And here's was DDave's blundering entry into the conversation:

Bryan

The intrinsic so-called "values" of good health and happiness only apply to one for whom it is intrinsic, AFAICT. How is it intrinsically good for me if Joe Smith is healthy and happy?”

and

“How is the serial murderer's enjoyment of serial killing less real than the grounding of your value system?”

DDave:

Use your imagination Bryan. Surely your religious fanaticism hasn’t erased all your human empathy and decency has it? Or are you really that selfish?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=61811

But I did understand what those who used the word 'universal', meant by it. If you didn’t, then that's your problem, not mine. You seem to enjoy playing word games just for the sake of it, don't you?

You are being intentionally obtuse as usual. It's very annoying. You would be classified as a boorish troll on just about any other message board besides this one.

Allow me to give you a piece of unsolicited advice Bryan. There are some things more important than mere words. Words are cheap. Actions speak louder than words. You seem to have lost sight of that fact, somewhere in amongst your maze of pedantic, semantic philosophical quibblings.

The "words are cheap" line is worth remembering.

If I may be so unholy as to quote a line from the gospels: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matt.23:23-24).

You are a ‘Pharisee’ of the highest order Bryan. Or would it be more accurate to describe you as a ‘Scribe’?

The "words are cheap" line still stands out among the others in DingoDave's diatribe.

I do believe in evil, but not in some sort of mystical superstitious way that you apparently do. I don't view evil as some sort of malignant fog floating around in the cosmos. The dictionary definition suits me just fine.

-Evil

noun:  morally objectionable behaviour

noun:  the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice (Example: "Attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")

noun:  that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (Example: "The evil that men do lives after them")

adjective:  tending to cause great harm

adjective:  morally bad or wrong (Example: "Evil purposes")

adjective:  having the nature of vice

adjective:  having or exerting a malignant influence

-Malevolent

adjective:  wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; arising from intense ill will or hatred (Example: "A gossipy malevolent old woman")

adjective:  having or exerting a malignant influence

Where does DingoDave get the idea that my idea of evil is different from the one he just affirmed? That's anybody's guess. I wouldn't expect any explanation from DDave, however, despite the low cost of words.

Then why have the argument at all? If it’s so obvious to you that that people can and do behave morally without superstitious beliefs, then why attempt to dispute the concept of the inherent human desire for ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, along with empathy?

Because there is no such inherent desire, certainly none stemming from the ability of people to behave morally without (what DDave calls) superstitious beliefs. And certainly that ability does not logically lead to an "inherent human desire for 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Is it work writing to appear that dense, DDave?

I believe that are lying Bryan (whether implicitly or explicitly), and I’m not buying it. In fact, I don’t believe that you could lie straight in bed!

If you have so much concern for human welfare, then protest to Yahweh in the strongest possible terms, about the hideous fate that awaits billions of people, according to your world view, whether they have ever had the ‘gospel’ presented to them or not.

I wrote:

"The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?"

Bryan responded:

"That's like my saying that you enthusiastically support the doctrine of "survival of the fittest." In other words, another cheap appeal to outrage."

Evolution through natural selection is a demonstrated fact, which is largely beyond human control. We as humans do not in fact practice a ‘survival of the fittest’ policy amongst ourselves, as should be obvious by the existence of hospitals, social welfare systems and charities, along with many other institutions set up for the express purpose of assisting the weak and infirm. Furthermore, it is light years removed from the concept of an intelligent, intentional being, wilfully inflicting unending pain and suffering on other creatures for no good reason, and without any apparent remedial or redemptive purpose.

Yet despite that light-years of distance you appear to have located the analog without bothering to address it.

Am I supposed to believe that, having found the difference between one half of the analogy and the other, you are therefore free to ignore the similarity?

I look forward to your caterwauling when somebody responds to you in like fashion.

Some things deserve our outrage Bryan. For example, the 9/11 murders at the world trade centre, the Holocaust of the Jews during the Nazi regime, the genocide in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the massacre of millions by Pohl Pot, and the doctrine of Hellfire, just to name a few. If we as human beings lose our ability to feel outrage in the face of horrific suffering and injustices such as these, then our societies won’t be worth living in. I for one do not feel ashamed for feeling outrage at these kinds of behaviours. I’m sorry to learn that you do not agree with me.

Not as sorry as I am to see you insisting on a fallacious argument (appeal to outrage) while trying to augment it with an ad hominem fallacy.

Somewhere along the line, your religious beliefs seem to have completely erased any vestiges of common sense and human decency. That’s a very sad thing in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's sad is this appeal that "human decency" should override my objection to the fallacious appeal to outrage--now clothed by DingoDave as an offense to common sense.

In the approximate week since your return you have provided more than adequate reason for everyone to dismiss your ramblings as unworthy of attention.

[Bryan]

This is common theme in the most hard-line fundamentalist religions. They get completely lost in their dogmas, which have no basis in fact and are founded entirely in the wish to believe. They end up being destructive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul is apparently unaware of the rich irony in his claim above.

Paul failed utterly to establish any sort of philosophical basis for his "universal" and "objective" system of morality (dogma). He had no basis in fact (unable to cross the is/ought divide), thus his adherence evidently stems entirely from the wish to believe.

And now he's trying to destroy the historic philosophical foundation of the United States of America with one that is philosophically incoherent (at least to hear anyone at KOTW tell it).