Our common humanity

[Guest Guest]

Good God!!!!  Paul you are really getting out of control............. This is ridiculous.  You must love to hear yourself. I guess that's where your son gets it.  Enough is enough... you have stated your case numerous times, please just stop your ridiculous postings.  We are sick of seeing and reading what you have to say!

KOTW-- Can't we just stop posting his remarks?  I think the people of Kearny and surrounding area are sick to death of his comments, and posts about stuff that does not belong on here.  I used to love to come on this site, and read about the happenings in the West Hudson area, and the Kearny site is just awful with all this "PAUL" stuff on here... come on now, this is the last straw.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently the argument was thoroughly convincing, even to those who did not wish to hear it.

[Guest Guest]

Note how Paul sets up the final sentence in the form of a dichotomy?

(1) The implication is that if we base our society on a god that may not exist, then we might "consume ourselves with endless arguments, fights and wars."

Scary, huh?

(2) Yet that's exactly what the Framers of the Constitution did. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) It's not an implication. It's an historical fact, especially in those societies whose god beliefs are the most rigid and the most fundamentalist.

(2) It is exactly what they did not do. We've been over all of this. The Constitution is a secular document, and is so interpreted by our courts.

[Guest Guest]

But don't ask Paul why the worth and dignity of all people is such a low priority for over half of the world's population. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have to ask. I know why. It is because people choose to ignore the fact of our common humanity in favor of what they think is their own self-interest. This isn't a new observation.

[Guest Guest]

What, you and junior?

You don't believe in the principles on which the nation was founded.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=8174

Junior probably doesn't, either.

Where do I make either of those assumptions?  Or is this a LaClair Inventive Extrapolation (LIE) ?

The problem with philosophical inconsistency is that another word for it is contradiction.

So a document that sets out a plan for theocracy (which is what you called my adherence to the principles originally contained in the Constitution) is also a work of genius?

It doesn't really take a lawyer to use a fallacy of distraction to try to eliminate the memory of what he wrote.  You called the general welfare clause "the philosophical and practical foundation for our system of laws, and the best in our religions."

That's completely ridiculous.  You realized it but you didn't want to admit it, so in this response you changed it to "very much a part of our legal framework."  The latter statement is defensible, the former one is indefensible.

It doesn't really take a lawyer to deliberately try to trick people with the words he uses--but maybe it helps.

So, other than the exceptions, it applies to everyone?  Did that one also register on Paul's Profound-o-meter?

You've tried it?  You have the evidence?

Sounds like a no-atheists-in-foxholes argument, to me.

Brilliant!  The exception proves the rule!

Nor does the wise person hold up "universal" human values (as that foundation) when the values are not really universal--but Paul won't want to talk about that.

Instead, he uses yet another distraction technique (bringing up the apparent straw man position that deviant behavior was suggested as a guidepost in establishing a foundation for moral, ethical and religious systems).

Michigan's black eye just keeps shinin'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan will insist to his dying breath that black is white. The Constitution is a secular document, not a blueprint for a theocracy. Bryan wishes it otherwise, therefore it is so. All hail Bryan.

[Guest Guest]

What, you and junior?

So, other than the exceptions, it applies to everyone?  Did that one also register on Paul's Profound-o-meter?

You've tried it?  You have the evidence?

Sounds like a no-atheists-in-foxholes argument, to me.

Brilliant!  The exception proves the rule!

Nor does the wise person hold up "universal" human values (as that foundation) when the values are not really universal--but Paul won't want to talk about that.

Instead, he uses yet another distraction technique (bringing up the apparent straw man position that deviant behavior was suggested as a guidepost in establishing a foundation for moral, ethical and religious systems).

Michigan's black eye just keeps shinin'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this guy really think that people don't want what is best for themselves and the people they care about? That's what he's saying, apparently because he doesn't want to think that what we do is based on what we want in our lives. But that's ridiculous. Of course that's why we do what we do. What's he trying to prove?

In the 1950s and 1960s a generation of young people took equal rights for everyone seriously, resulting in the civil rights movement. Does this Bryan guy deny that, too? What is his problem?

[Guest Guest]

What, you and junior?

You don't believe in the principles on which the nation was founded.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=8174

Junior probably doesn't, either.

Where do I make either of those assumptions?  Or is this a LaClair Inventive Extrapolation (LIE) ?

The problem with philosophical inconsistency is that another word for it is contradiction.

So a document that sets out a plan for theocracy (which is what you called my adherence to the principles originally contained in the Constitution) is also a work of genius?

It doesn't really take a lawyer to use a fallacy of distraction to try to eliminate the memory of what he wrote.  You called the general welfare clause "the philosophical and practical foundation for our system of laws, and the best in our religions."

That's completely ridiculous.  You realized it but you didn't want to admit it, so in this response you changed it to "very much a part of our legal framework."  The latter statement is defensible, the former one is indefensible.

It doesn't really take a lawyer to deliberately try to trick people with the words he uses--but maybe it helps.

So, other than the exceptions, it applies to everyone?  Did that one also register on Paul's Profound-o-meter?

You've tried it?  You have the evidence?

Sounds like a no-atheists-in-foxholes argument, to me.

Brilliant!  The exception proves the rule!

Nor does the wise person hold up "universal" human values (as that foundation) when the values are not really universal--but Paul won't want to talk about that.

Instead, he uses yet another distraction technique (bringing up the apparent straw man position that deviant behavior was suggested as a guidepost in establishing a foundation for moral, ethical and religious systems).

Michigan's black eye just keeps shinin'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you have nothing to say, make sure you say it very loudly, very aggressively and very often. Turn up the volume when the other person has made an especially good point you can't answer. Accuse others of every leap of illogic you can think of, whether they are guilty of them or not, and then make them yourself. It's tactical. You beat them to the punch that way and make it look like there's a real discussion going on, even though there isn't.

Every point is always the other guy's burden, down to the most insignificant nit. You, on the other hand, are not responsible to back up anything you say. The sheer volume of your intensity and your repetition will drown out all objections - especially if you put your fingers in your ears and don't listen to what the other guy is saying.

Oh, and if you're arguing biblical fundamentalism, do not under any circumstances admit the obvious fact that our common humanity is of any importance. That Golden Rule crap, that was just a politcal ploy Jesus used to rally the troops. What really matters is that people go to hell if they don't agree with you.

Bryan is the perfect example of an authoritarian personality. Not surprisingly, he is also a right-wing biblical fundamentalist. The two go hand in hand.

[Guest Paul]

Rah! Rah! Rah!

Hmm.....I guess you really told me. OUCH! You got me alright. Feel Better now?

Is that all you got? Can't you put together anything relevent to Paul's post?

I will sell my computer so that I may never have to feel the wrath of "guest" again.

Say what you will but until you have the cojones to indentify yourself nothing you say will have any creedence.

Have a nice day. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not one of the fundamentalists who has posted on this topic has said a single positive thing about our common humanity. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." "A person's a person, no matter how small." (Dr. Seuss) It's the same principle, and yet the fundies don't have one good thing to say about it, even though it's the spiritual core of their own religion!

Says a lot about how lost they have allowed themselves to become and why it's important for the majority of us who do get it to get through to them. The fundies are our brothers and sisters. We need them in the struggle to make a just and better world. We need them as co-workers in that struggle, not obstacles to it. Come on, guys, think. It's not just about you and what you believe. It's about all of us, and what is real.

[Bryan]

Not one of the fundamentalists who has posted on this topic has said a single positive thing about our common humanity.

There's not much to say good or bad about a tautology, really. Yes, all humans are human. It doesn't lead anywhere from there.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

If that statement represents our common humanity, then why do so many people appear to completely reject it?

The LaVey Church of Satan, for example, completely rejects the Golden Rule as anti-evolutionary, yet LaClair proclaims that value as "universal" (later absurdly defining "universal" to have exceptions, which effectively empties the term of any useful meaning in terms of his argument--other than what is achieved by fooling people with fallacies of equivocation).

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu...m/churchof.html

"A person's a person, no matter how small." (Dr. Seuss) It's the same principle, and yet the fundies don't have one good thing to say about it, even though it's the spiritual core of their own religion!

Blather, rinse, repeat.

Speaking for myself, I have spend quite a bit of time emphasizing the common and unalienable rights of man as endowed by the Creator.

My position thus applies morality and human rights to every human individual, and it has a plausible philosophical basis that isn't a tautology (you don't get from "we're all human" to "we should treat everybody like we want to be treated" without additional argumentation--not logically, anyway).

It's true that I haven't tried to emphasize morality stemming from our common humanity as such--for that would be logically absurd (wringing an "ought" from an "is" and drawing a novel conclusion from a tautology).

The astounding thing is that Paul dismisses the foundation I offered for morality as though it does not encompass all of humanity.

Sleazy lawyer trick #4773

Says a lot about how lost they have allowed themselves to become and why it's important for the majority of us who do get it to get through to them. The fundies are our brothers and sisters. We need them in the struggle to make a just and better world. We need them as co-workers in that struggle, not obstacles to it. Come on, guys, think. It's not just about you and what you believe. It's about all of us, and what is real.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LaClair doggedly keeps to his charade.

[Guest Guest]

There's not much to say good or bad about a tautology, really.  Yes, all humans are human.  It doesn't lead anywhere from there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh no, nowhere at all. Our common humanity has no meaning, says Bryan, it’s just a tautology, a linguistic repetition of the same thing using different words. Ay-yi-yi.

Our humanity is the product of hundreds of millions of years of development. While it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, we human beings are the most intellectually advanced and perhaps the most emotionally sensitive living beings known to exist anywhere. Unlike any other species, we have the capacity for symbolic thought that makes it possible for us to conceive of gods, whom we usually fashion in our image, and also to design complex systems of education, government, society and technology that make modern life possible for a sizable fraction of the seven billion people on planet Earth.

Along with our humanity goes a large collection of instincts, drives, emotions, etc. A mother seeing her newborn infant experiences a wealth of emotions and physical responses in particular parts of her body. A young man seeing a particular young woman for the first time is suddenly overwhelmed not just with a physical passion, but with feelings of warmth like he has never known before, which help carry him through a lifetime of fidelity to this young woman against his innate drive to pursue everything on two legs that has less hair on its face than he has. A child hears another child crying and runs for help because of the natural sympathetic emotion we are genetically predisposed to express. In cultures all over the world, men, women and children are trying to feed families, train/educate children, have a little time left over to enjoy their own lives, and stay healthy long enough to pass the whole thing onto another generation. And Bryan tells us that none of it means a thing.

We can see the look on the face of a mother anywhere in the world who has just seen her child drown, and recognize from her facial expression that she is experiencing grief; or the look on the face of a farmer who has just finished bringing in the year’s crop and know that he is experiencing a sense of relief; or the look on the face of a soldier in heavy combat and know that he is afraid; or the look on the face of a parent whose child has just completed a difficult rite of passage and know that the parent is experiencing pride. That is why children’s charities advertise with the faces of children: we all know what that looks means. It tugs at our hearts and induces us to tug at our wallets. Whatever language we speak with our tongues, we speak a common language from within, and it is true all over the world. It is the central Truth that makes it possible for us to live together as one human family, IF we so choose. That is how powerful a force our humanity is, powerful enough in fact that we can even recognize these emotions in other species.

Of course this is an appeal to people. To whom should we appeal, the caterpillars perhaps? This is an appeal to the Truth we know from within. No one needs to go to school to learn it, and no amount of philosophizing will change it. We can choose to ignore it, but we cannot make it go away. Some of the finest clerical minds have written of the truth that surpasses all understanding. This is that Truth. Not surprisingly, people who think that all truth is written down in a book don’t get it. They refuse to get it, and yet even they manage to live by it most of the time.

Is some agnostic or atheist organization paying Bryan to write that stuff?

[Bryan]

Paul's quiet for the moment, and it seems like nobody's trying to argue the other side except ignorant anonymous guests.

I'll make an exception to my rule of ignoring anonymous guests in this case, in order to illustrate why such posts are rightly ignored.

And a note to would-be participants in a real conversation: If you have something to say that you feel is worth a response, put a name with it. It doesn't need to be your real name. You don't even have to register. Just do something to separate yourself from the sea of others posting under the same name so that you own your argument from week to week.

If you don't do that, then you appear to operate with cowardice as your operating principle.

Oh no, nowhere at all. Our common humanity has no meaning, says Bryan, it’s just a tautology, a linguistic repetition of the same thing using different words. Ay-yi-yi.

A straw man right out of the chute.

My argument is not that our common humanity has no meaning, but that all humans are human has no truth to it that applies to anything else. In addition, being human is an "is" and does not serve to cross the is/ought divide (see Hume) as LaClair apparently seeks to do yet again.

An anonymous Guest who is a dumb as a box of rocks may not get it, of course.

Our humanity is the product of hundreds of millions of years of development. While it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, we human beings are the most intellectually advanced and perhaps the most emotionally sensitive living beings known to exist anywhere. Unlike any other species, we have the capacity for symbolic thought that makes it possible for us to conceive of gods, whom we usually fashion in our image, and also to design complex systems of education, government, society and technology that make modern life possible for a sizable fraction of the seven billion people on planet Earth.

Wonderful. So what?

Along with our humanity goes a large collection of instincts, drives, emotions, etc. A mother seeing her newborn infant experiences a wealth of emotions and physical responses in particular parts of her body. A young man seeing a particular young woman for the first time is suddenly overwhelmed not just with a physical passion, but with feelings of warmth like he has never known before, which help carry him through a lifetime of fidelity to this young woman against his innate drive to pursue everything on two legs that has less hair on its face than he has. A child hears another child crying and runs for help because of the natural sympathetic emotion we are genetically predisposed to express. In cultures all over the world, men, women and children are trying to feed families, train/educate children, have a little time left over to enjoy their own lives, and stay healthy long enough to pass the whole thing onto another generation. And Bryan tells us that none of it means a thing.

Guest's straw man version of what Bryan says tells us that, anyway.

A Guest who isn't also the equal of planarian in intellect might have picked up on the fact that I alluded to the common unalienable rights of man--as endowed by the Creator, in the words of the authors of the Declaration of Independence (which Paul thinks is nonsense, of course).

Paul's still trying to cross the is/ought divide by magic, but this Guest is too imbecilic to realize the implications, apparently.

We can see the look on the face of a mother anywhere in the world who has just seen her child drown, and recognize from her facial expression that she is experiencing grief; or the look on the face of a farmer who has just finished bringing in the year’s crop and know that he is experiencing a sense of relief; or the look on the face of a soldier in heavy combat and know that he is afraid; or the look on the face of a parent whose child has just completed a difficult rite of passage and know that the parent is experiencing pride. That is why children’s charities advertise with the faces of children: we all know what that looks means. It tugs at our hearts and induces us to tug at our wallets. Whatever language we speak with our tongues, we speak a common language from within, and it is true all over the world. It is the central Truth that makes it possible for us to live together as one human family, IF we so choose. That is how powerful a force our humanity is, powerful enough in fact that we can even recognize these emotions in other species.

None of which amounts to a hill of beans in terms of establishing a philosophical basis for morality ... which no doubt fails to penetrate the shields of ignorance that keep Guest in his blissful state of not realizing that LaClair has no clue what he's talking about.

Of course this is an appeal to people.

Correct. It's a fallacious appeal to the people, in fact.

To whom should we appeal, the caterpillars perhaps?

Fallacy of equivocation.

It's perfectly okay to appeal to people using non-fallacious reasoning.

Yo, people!

If A, then B.

A

Therefore B.

No fallacy. On the other hand ...

Yo, idiot Guest!

A

most people think if A, then B.

Therefore B

Fallacy of appeal to the people, located in the (faulty) inference that results in the conclusion.

Got it, numbskull?

This is an appeal to the Truth we know from within.

Perhaps what LaClair refers to as "intuition" as a part of logic. In reality, it's a euphemism for a logical fallacy.

No one needs to go to school to learn it, and no amount of philosophizing will change it. We can choose to ignore it, but we cannot make it go away. Some of the finest clerical minds have written of the truth that surpasses all understanding. This is that Truth.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the "peace that passes all understanding" from Philippians 4:7.

Obviously you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it's understandable that you cower from the ridicule that is due to you by keeping yourself anonymous.

Again, this is just to serve as an example why arguments from your type are not worth the time it takes to read them (let alone respond).

Not surprisingly, people who think that all truth is written down in a book don’t get it. They refuse to get it, and yet even they manage to live by it most of the time.

Is some agnostic or atheist organization paying Bryan to write that stuff?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The unoriginal joke at the end may have been the best part.

That's rather sad.

With talent like yours, it seems very likely that we can depend on your continued anonymity.

[Guest Melanie]

Yes, all humans are human.  It doesn't lead anywhere from there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What an absolutely, unbelievably stupid remark. "Our humanity doesn't lead anywhere." In other words, the development of the human species (or the creation of it if you believe it happened that way) doesn't have any effect on the world, on the kind of social, moral and religious systems we have - no effect on anything at all, our humanity is just a meaningless word without a single thing behind it or ahead of it. This Bryan doesn't a single thing about what evolution is, how it works or what it means.

[Guest Melanie]

QUOTE

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

If that statement represents our common humanity, then why do so many people appear to completely reject it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because they are self-interested. They're not denying that others have the same kinds of feelings and desires and wants as they have. They just don't care, at least not enough, and very often they'll block themselves from thinking about it. Our humanity is universal. Recognition of the fact and understanding of it is not.

[Guest bewildered]

Bryan: The Lavey Church of Satan? You really must be desperate to refer to this small, insignificant group.

[Bryan]

What an absolutely, unbelievably stupid remark. "Our humanity doesn't lead anywhere."

What's stupid, Melanie, is responding to a one-sentence comment and misrepresenting it in your response along with the inclusion of an inaccurate quotation.

If you don't know what a tautology is, then look it up.

In other words, the development of the human species (or the creation of it if you believe it happened that way) doesn't have any effect on the world, on the kind of social, moral and religious systems we have - no effect on anything at all, our humanity is just a meaningless word without a single thing behind it or ahead of it.

That's not just other words, it's an entirely different meaning.

There is nothing about what humanity is per se, that provides a philosophical foundation for morality. Reference David Hume and the is/ought divide and you'll have an inkling about the issue.

This Bryan doesn't a single thing about what evolution is, how it works or what it means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chances are I know more than Melanie does about what evolution is, how it works, and what it means.

But Melanie wasn't done!

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

If that statement represents our common humanity, then why do so many people appear to completely reject it?

Because they are self-interested. They're not denying that others have the same kinds of feelings and desires and wants as they have. They just don't care, at least not enough, and very often they'll block themselves from thinking about it. Our humanity is universal. Recognition of the fact and understanding of it is not.

Why isn't self-interest a representation of our common humanity, then?

At least as much as the Golden Rule, anyway?

[Guest Melanie]

Paul's quiet for the moment, and it seems like nobody's trying to argue the other side except ignorant anonymous guests.

I'll make an exception to my rule of ignoring anonymous guests in this case, in order to illustrate why such posts are rightly ignored.

And a note to would-be participants in a real conversation:  If you have something to say that you feel is worth a response, put a name with it.  It doesn't need to be your real name.  You don't even have to register.  Just do something to separate yourself from the sea of others posting under the same name so that you own your argument from week to week.

If you don't do that, then you appear to operate with cowardice as your operating principle.

A straw man right out of the chute.

My argument is not that our common humanity has no meaning, but that all humans are human has no truth to it that applies to anything else.  In addition, being human is an "is" and does not serve to cross the is/ought divide (see Hume) as LaClair apparently seeks to do yet again.

An anonymous Guest who is a dumb as a box of rocks may not get it, of course.

Wonderful.  So what?

Guest's straw man version of what Bryan says tells us that, anyway.

A Guest who isn't also the equal of planarian in intellect might have picked up on the fact that I alluded to the common unalienable rights of man--as endowed by the Creator, in the words of the authors of the Declaration of Independence (which Paul thinks is nonsense, of course).

Paul's still trying to cross the is/ought divide by magic, but this Guest is too imbecilic to realize the implications, apparently.

None of which amounts to a hill of beans in terms of establishing a philosophical basis for morality ... which no doubt fails to penetrate the shields of ignorance that keep Guest in his blissful state of not realizing that LaClair has no clue what he's talking about.

Correct.  It's a fallacious appeal to the people, in fact.

Fallacy of equivocation.

It's perfectly okay to appeal to people using non-fallacious reasoning.

Yo, people!

If A, then B.

A

Therefore B.

No fallacy.  On the other hand ...

Yo, idiot Guest!

A

most people think if A, then B.

Therefore B

Fallacy of appeal to the people, located in the (faulty) inference that results in the conclusion.

Got it, numbskull?

Perhaps what LaClair refers to as "intuition" as a part of logic.  In reality, it's a euphemism for a logical fallacy.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the "peace that passes all understanding" from Philippians 4:7.

Obviously you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it's understandable that you cower from the ridicule that is due to you by keeping yourself anonymous.

Again, this is just to serve as an example why arguments from your type are not worth the time it takes to read them (let alone respond).

The unoriginal joke at the end may have been the best part.

That's rather sad.

With talent like yours, it seems very likely that we can depend on your continued anonymity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah yes, play time with Bryan. La, what fun.

OK, Dopey, let's see if you'll actually answer a few questions for a change.

1. You just wrote: "My argument is not that our common humanity has no meaning . . ." What meaning does it have, then? Please be specific and justify your answer.

2. You also wrote: ". . . that all humans are human has no truth to it that applies to anything else." I have no idea what you think that means, but how about the truth that applies to the thing itself, which is us. What are the implications of being human for us humans, if any, and in particular for our social, religious, ethical, moral and political systems? Please be specific and justify your answer.

3. Are you saying that you accept the Golden Rule, or the unalienable rights of man, because you think there is a God who tells you to do that? Or is it just the right thing to do? Or both? Do you really need a God to tell you that you shouldn't shoot your neighbor, or for that matter skin a frog alive just so you can watch him jump around without his skin? Can it really be said that you respect others if you "do unto them" or accord them their rights not for their own sake, but because you think there's a God who told you to? Please be specific, justifiying your answer in sufficient detail so that a person of average intelligence can understand it clearly, and of course include the "philosophical basis" for your answer.

4. What makes you think that morality has a philosophical basis? Do you think that maybe philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for their expression? Hmmm? Just maybe? Are you saying that morality is based only in philosophy, or is it also based in fact, i.e., our "is?" If it isn't based on fact, then what is it based on, and what is its frame of reference? Do you have a philosophical basis for a system of morality among your morally perfect rocks? Please tell us all about it, oh do tell. And if morality is based on fact, but not on facts about us, then what facts is it based on? And on what basis do you make that claim? How can you have a system of morality outside the real world and the lives and interests of real people, or at least real beings? Please justify your answers with the same degree of proof and logical precision as you require of others.

Oh, and Bryan, thank you so, so much! for overcoming your great reluctance to respond to "Guest" for the benefit of us all. Pay no attention to the laughter. Remember: Some men are born great. Others achieve greatness. Others have greatness thrust upon them!

[Guest Melanie]

What's stupid, Melanie, is responding to a one-sentence comment and misrepresenting it in your response along with the inclusion of an inaccurate quotation.

If you don't know what a tautology is, then look it up.

That's not just other words, it's an entirely different meaning.

There is nothing about what humanity is per se, that provides a philosophical foundation for morality.  Reference David Hume and the is/ought divide and you'll have an inkling about the issue.

Chances are I know more than Melanie does about what evolution is, how it works, and what it means.

But Melanie wasn't done!

Why isn't self-interest a representation of our common humanity, then?

At least as much as the Golden Rule, anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, I know what a tautology is. You can put a statement about our humanity in the form of a tautology. That doesn't change the fact that human beings have highly developed brains, which process and produce sophisticated emotions, thoughts and actions. Being human has real implications, and real meaning. Human beings have preferences. Moral and ethical systems, and also religions, get so caught up looking at the details that they often overlook the fundamental building block, which is our humanity. If it wasn't what it is, our systems wouldn't be what they are. Turn us into worms and we'll have a preference for eating dirt - but we don't because we're human. It's not just tautological. It's biological, and that gets expressed as what we call the mind.

You can't just take all the information you don't like, put it in the form of a tautology and stick it in a corner just because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. No, actually you can, which is why no one can really have a discussion with you. It's a shame that you can't see your own prejudices, and that none of this means anything to you.

[Bryan]

Bryan, I know what a tautology is. You can put a statement about our humanity in the form of a tautology.

I don't really need to, since Paul LaClair handles that end of the deal.

That doesn't change the fact that human beings have highly developed brains, which process and produce sophisticated emotions, thoughts and actions. Being human has real implications, and real meaning.

I agree--but it is because humans possess common humanity per se, or is it because of something else?

Human beings have preferences.

So do sugar ants.

Moral and ethical systems, and also religions, get so caught up looking at the details that they often overlook the fundamental building block, which is our humanity.

Again, I can see how "common humanity" lends itself to universal ethics if, say, a god endowed each human with certain unalienable rights. I do not, however, see how "common humanity" lends itself to a parallel conception of rights any more than common sugar-anthood lends itself to a universal system of rights among sugar ants.

And I gravely doubt your ability to make a coherent case for it, Melanie.

If it wasn't what it is, our systems wouldn't be what they are. Turn us into worms and we'll have a preference for eating dirt - but we don't because we're human. It's not just tautological. It's biological, and that gets expressed as what we call the mind.

Your derisive and worm-hating speech appears to suggest the fact of certain preferences leads to some form of common (or universal?) morality. I hope you'll take a moment to pinpoint at least one of the key human preferences that establishes that moral sense.

And then we'll talk about the is-ought dichotomy.

You can't just take all the information you don't like, put it in the form of a tautology and stick it in a corner just because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. No, actually you can, which is why no one can really have a discussion with you.

Now, Melanie--don't resort to lying this quickly. Paul LaClair is the one who put our common humanity in the form of a tautology when he was asked how it establishes a philosophical basis for his so-called "universal" (with exceptions!) values. I took no step to note that it was a tautology until LaClair put it in terms of a tautology--and he'd been blathering on about it for weeks prior to that.

It's a shame that you can't see your own prejudices, and that none of this means anything to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you point out my supposed prejudice and how it's relevant to this disagreement and see if I put it aside or not?

Or have you prejudicially decided that I will be unable to do that?

[Bryan]

Ah yes, play time with Bryan. La, what fun.

OK, Dopey, let's see if you'll actually answer a few questions for a change.

For a change? Listen to the newbie.

1. You just wrote: "My argument is not that our common humanity has no meaning . . ." What meaning does it have, then? Please be specific and justify your answer.

Ah, the old sandbagging technique. Try to come up with questions designed to require lengthy answers.

Our common humanity means that humans are different from non-humans. Specifically, humanity is placed in charge of the creation and is endowed with certain unalienable rights by a creator.

I've answered that question prior to this, by the way. You want to play the game of asking for the justification of the justification, and so on?

2. You also wrote: ". . . that all humans are human has no truth to it that applies to anything else." I have no idea what you think that means,

I thought you said you knew what a tautology was (subsequent post)? Ah--maybe you looked it up after you composed this reply?

but how about the truth that applies to the thing itself, which is us. What are the implications of being human for us humans, if any, and in particular for our social, religious, ethical, moral and political systems? Please be specific and justify your answer.

There is nothing in being human by itself that has any implications beyond being human (that's what a tautology is).

There are plenty of ramifications for humanity that stem from being endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights, on the other hand. I don't see much purpose in describing those until Melanie accepts that idea, however. Unless I just need to fill my time.

How about it, Melanie? Do you agree that a creator endowed all humans with unalienable rights?

3. Are you saying that you accept the Golden Rule, or the unalienable rights of man, because you think there is a God who tells you to do that? Or is it just the right thing to do? Or both? Do you really need a God to tell you that you shouldn't shoot your neighbor, or for that matter skin a frog alive just so you can watch him jump around without his skin? Can it really be said that you respect others if you "do unto them" or accord them their rights not for their own sake, but because you think there's a God who told you to? Please be specific, justifiying your answer in sufficient detail so that a person of average intelligence can understand it clearly, and of course include the "philosophical basis" for your answer.

I accept the Golden rule because it follows from my worldview, not because of divine command.

Without god endowing the rights, it isn't at all clear that it could be "just the right thing to do" (we'll return you to Hume's is/ought divide at some point, I think).

As for shooting my neighbor, I'm already on record stating that our rights are endowed, and that they do not stem from divine command. It's not clear how it could be truly wrong to shoot my neighbor apart from the existence of a god. If it is wrong (truly wrong), then this seems to suggest the existence of a god.

My answer as-is appears to address Melanie's subsequent questions under the same point.

Pretty funny that she immediately adopted the tactic of shifting the question asked of her right back onto me.

4. What makes you think that morality has a philosophical basis? Do you think that maybe philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for their expression? Hmmm? Just maybe? Are you saying that morality is based only in philosophy, or is it also based in fact, i.e., our "is?" If it isn't based on fact, then what is it based on, and what is its frame of reference? Do you have a philosophical basis for a system of morality among your morally perfect rocks? Please tell us all about it, oh do tell. And if morality is based on fact, but not on facts about us, then what facts is it based on? And on what basis do you make that claim? How can you have a system of morality outside the real world and the lives and interests of real people, or at least real beings? Please justify your answers with the same degree of proof and logical precision as you require of others.

I think that morality has a philosophical basis because of evidence suggesting the existence of a god (other than the appearance of morality), and because the worldview that would result if there were no philosophical basis for morality is repugnant. I think one good test for a worldview is whether you can live with it.

If philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for them, then the suggestion that philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for them appears to simply be a case of desire fulfilling itself (in other words, Melanie, your argument on this point is self-referentially absurd).

Morality itself can be a fact, but, lacking some justification that overcomes Hume's powerful objections, it cannot be extrapolated from "is."

I think morality is based on the nature of god, and I don't think there is any other meaningful foundation for morality apart from god. But I'm open to hearing the arguments for it (not that Melanie shows any inclination in that direction).

I don't have a philosophical basis for the morality of rocks. I should have been apparent that the rocks I talked about were brought up for the sake of argument (an impressive bit of sandbagging asking about that, however).

I believe I've answered the questions that follow, at least up through the question that appears fallaciously complex (containing the premise that god is not part of the real world, or something like that).

Oh, and Bryan, thank you so, so much! for overcoming your great reluctance to respond to "Guest" for the benefit of us all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're welcome.

We'll see if you learned anything from it.

[Guest Kirby]

Why isn't self-interest a representation of our common humanity, then?

At least as much as the Golden Rule, anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is. It represents our common humanity but does not honor it universally. It honors it selectively.

[Bryan]

It is. It represents our common humanity but does not honor it universally. It honors it selectively.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should our common humanity be honored universally?

Around and 'round we go again ...

[Guest Guest]

How about it, Melanie?  Do you agree that a creator endowed all humans with unalienable rights?

I accept the Golden rule because it follows from my worldview, not because of divine command.

Without god endowing the rights, it isn't at all clear that it could be "just the right thing to do" (we'll return you to Hume's is/ought divide at some point, I think).

As for shooting my neighbor, I'm already on record stating that our rights are endowed, and that they do not stem from divine command.  It's not clear how it could be truly wrong to shoot my neighbor apart from the existence of a god.  If it is wrong (truly wrong), then this seems to suggest the existence of a god.

My answer as-is appears to address Melanie's subsequent questions under the same point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's like looking for your contact lenses three blocks from where you dropped them because the light's better there. After all the endless and empty posts, Bryan's "philosophy" comes down to nothing more than that?! Afraid so.

[Guest Frank]

For a change?  Listen to the newbie.

Ah, the old sandbagging technique.  Try to come up with questions designed to require lengthy answers.

Our common humanity means that humans are different from non-humans.  Specifically, humanity is placed in charge of the creation and is endowed with certain unalienable rights by a creator.

I've answered that question prior to this, by the way.  You want to play the game of asking for the justification of the justification, and so on?

I thought you said you knew what a tautology was (subsequent post)?  Ah--maybe you looked it up after you composed this reply?

There is nothing in being human by itself that has any implications beyond being human (that's what a tautology is).

There are plenty of ramifications for humanity that stem from being endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights, on the other hand.  I don't see much purpose in describing those until Melanie accepts that idea, however.  Unless I just need to fill my time.

How about it, Melanie?  Do you agree that a creator endowed all humans with unalienable rights?

I accept the Golden rule because it follows from my worldview, not because of divine command.

Without god endowing the rights, it isn't at all clear that it could be "just the right thing to do" (we'll return you to Hume's is/ought divide at some point, I think).

As for shooting my neighbor, I'm already on record stating that our rights are endowed, and that they do not stem from divine command.  It's not clear how it could be truly wrong to shoot my neighbor apart from the existence of a god.  If it is wrong (truly wrong), then this seems to suggest the existence of a god.

My answer as-is appears to address Melanie's subsequent questions under the same point.

Pretty funny that she immediately adopted the tactic of shifting the question asked of her right back onto me.

I think that morality has a philosophical basis because of evidence suggesting the existence of a god (other than the appearance of morality), and because the worldview that would result if there were no philosophical basis for morality is repugnant.  I think one good test for a worldview is whether you can live with it.

If philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for them, then the suggestion that philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for them appears to simply be a case of desire fulfilling itself (in other words, Melanie, your argument on this point is self-referentially absurd).

Morality itself can be a fact, but, lacking some justification that overcomes Hume's powerful objections, it cannot be extrapolated from "is."

I think morality is based on the nature of god, and I don't think there is any other meaningful foundation for morality apart from god.  But I'm open to hearing the arguments for it (not that Melanie shows any inclination in that direction).

I don't have a philosophical basis for the morality of rocks.  I should have been apparent that the rocks I talked about were brought up for the sake of argument (an impressive bit of sandbagging asking about that, however).

I believe I've answered the questions that follow, at least up through the question that appears fallaciously complex (containing the premise that god is not part of the real world, or something like that).

You're welcome.

We'll see if you learned anything from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No wonder Bryan has been so reluctant to explain his views. What complete and utter nonsense they are.

He works from the inside out, but reality doesn’t work that way. The reality of our lives does not bow to his philosophy. Instead, our task as thinking beings is to conform our philosophies, moral and ethical systems, etc., to reality. Along the way we have to make value judgments because “is” alone won’t get us to “ought”, but that doesn’t justify making up a god-guy-in-the-sky to make the pieces fit.

If we look at what is meaningful to us, it becomes clear enough to most of us who value all people regardless of their culture, tribe, race, etc., what is to be considered: it is what we value, and since human beings value the same things if the categories are defined broadly enough, a moral, ethical and religious system can be constructed out of our preferences. That is in fact what the theologies do all the time, but they don’t admit it. Instead they invent an imaginary mediator, which serves the dysfunctional purpose of permitting them not to think about what they’re really doing: “God said it, I believe it, end of discussion.” By contrast, the main questions for those who would construct our human systems to fit our human preferences are (1) how broadly or narrowly are we going to define the fundamental premises of the system (e.g., are we going to insist on something specific like traditional marriage and family, or will we settle on something broad like health, satisfaction, happiness and the like), and (2) how many outliers can the system tolerate and on what basis can it hold together taking them into account (e.g., how does it handle the Marquis de Sade). The mere fact that a system is imperfect is not enough of an objection to disqualify it. Remember, we’re trying to address the real world and live in it in the best way possible. There’s no guarantee in nature that I know of that we’re going to be able to do it perfectly.

Ah-ha! says Bryan, but look at those sugar ants. They have preferences, too. That’s debatable. Ants have mushroom bodies, not brains per se, and they are not processing information the way we are. I doubt that they experience emotion, but would of course defer to the biologists on that score. Just the same, (1) we have enough trouble dealing with our own species before we turn to others and (2) there’s no reason why an ethical system based on human preferences could not also encompass the preferences of other living beings. In fact, we have laws in most (or all) states (USA) against cruelty to animals. That seems to be based on our concern for their welfare. I don’t know that the Bible has anything to say about it, and several passages in the Bible seem to suggest that we need not detain ourselves with that.

What Bryan seems to be saying in this post and the one immediately preceding it is that if we invent a god-in-our-heads who tells us that it’s OK to step on sugar ants, then voila, all philosophical objections to that behavior may be safely cast aside. Uh-huh, just like all the ancient tribes cast aside their brutality toward other humans by convincing themselves that God was on their side alone. That’s not a solution, it’s a rationalization, and he pulls it out of thin air. “I want to believe it, and if it were true it would allow me to do things as I wish to do them. Ergo, there is a God.” And then he has the chutzpah to accuse someone else of utilizing a desire to fulfill itself. (There is a difference, of course, between trying to make up reality and trying to fashion an ethical system, but it’s obviously far too sophisticated for Bryan at the moment.) And in the process he challenges Melanie to point out his prejudices! Egads, if he can’t see them after what he has been told so far, I doubt that anyone can explain them to him. And this is Bryan’s idea of a sound philosophy?

Then he is challenged with a direct question and immediate whines that he is being sandbagged. He gives his answer, and he does clarify his position, and for a lot of us that’s about all we need to hear from Bryan.

No thanks, Bry. I’ll take a pass on your “system.”

[Guest Tom]

For a change?  Listen to the newbie.

Ah, the old sandbagging technique.  Try to come up with questions designed to require lengthy answers.

Our common humanity means that humans are different from non-humans.  Specifically, humanity is placed in charge of the creation and is endowed with certain unalienable rights by a creator.

I've answered that question prior to this, by the way.  You want to play the game of asking for the justification of the justification, and so on?

I thought you said you knew what a tautology was (subsequent post)?  Ah--maybe you looked it up after you composed this reply?

There is nothing in being human by itself that has any implications beyond being human (that's what a tautology is).

There are plenty of ramifications for humanity that stem from being endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights, on the other hand.  I don't see much purpose in describing those until Melanie accepts that idea, however.  Unless I just need to fill my time.

How about it, Melanie?  Do you agree that a creator endowed all humans with unalienable rights?

I accept the Golden rule because it follows from my worldview, not because of divine command.

Without god endowing the rights, it isn't at all clear that it could be "just the right thing to do" (we'll return you to Hume's is/ought divide at some point, I think).

As for shooting my neighbor, I'm already on record stating that our rights are endowed, and that they do not stem from divine command.  It's not clear how it could be truly wrong to shoot my neighbor apart from the existence of a god.  If it is wrong (truly wrong), then this seems to suggest the existence of a god.

My answer as-is appears to address Melanie's subsequent questions under the same point.

Pretty funny that she immediately adopted the tactic of shifting the question asked of her right back onto me.

I think that morality has a philosophical basis because of evidence suggesting the existence of a god (other than the appearance of morality), and because the worldview that would result if there were no philosophical basis for morality is repugnant.  I think one good test for a worldview is whether you can live with it.

If philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for them, then the suggestion that philosophy is just a way of conceptualizing our desires and providing a framework for them appears to simply be a case of desire fulfilling itself (in other words, Melanie, your argument on this point is self-referentially absurd).

Morality itself can be a fact, but, lacking some justification that overcomes Hume's powerful objections, it cannot be extrapolated from "is."

I think morality is based on the nature of god, and I don't think there is any other meaningful foundation for morality apart from god.  But I'm open to hearing the arguments for it (not that Melanie shows any inclination in that direction).

I don't have a philosophical basis for the morality of rocks.  I should have been apparent that the rocks I talked about were brought up for the sake of argument (an impressive bit of sandbagging asking about that, however).

I believe I've answered the questions that follow, at least up through the question that appears fallaciously complex (containing the premise that god is not part of the real world, or something like that).

You're welcome.

We'll see if you learned anything from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I get it now! If I believe in God, and God tells me how things are supposed to be, then that's a sufficient basis for everything I do.

OK, then, I believe in God, and God tells me that everyone is supposed to send all their assets to me. God's plan is for me to own all the money and wealth in the wooooorrrrrlllllddd! So Bryan, post your real name and address and I'll set up a post office box number so you can transfer your assets to me.

Now how is that any different from what you're doing, Bryan? You think about it and let us all know when you have the answer. And make sure to explain it very carefully because remember, we're not as smart as you are, so you have to go real slow and make sure you don't leave anything out of the explanation. Don't worry about your explanation being long. (As though that ever stops you when you think you have something to say.)

And how is it any different from what the people who started your religion did in the first place, except that they convinced enough people to go along with them that they gained the power to enforce? You think about that one, too. Let us know when you come up with an answer.

[Guest Guest]

Why should our common humanity be honored universally?

Around and 'round we go again ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you don't honor all people, then that's your choice, but the result of it will be that some people won't be happy about what you're doing to them. That leads to conflicts as severe and as destructive as war, not to mention that those people will suffer for your not honoring them. Why should you care if they suffer? If you don't already know the answer, it's not likely that anyone can explain it to you.

On the other hand, if we do honor all people, we have a chance of building a world in which we all work together for the good of all. That's a sustainable and peaceful state of affairs. You can just as well ask why should we want sustainable and peaceful outcomes, but at some point that becomes tiresome. In fact, it already is.

[Bryan]

No wonder Bryan has been so reluctant to explain his views. What complete and utter nonsense they are.

1) I haven't been reluctant to share my views. Most of what I wrote is a repeat of other posts to this forum.

2) Nonsense? Proceed with the support of your assessment, then.

He works from the inside out, but reality doesn’t work that way. The reality of our lives does not bow to his philosophy. Instead, our task as thinking beings is to conform our philosophies, moral and ethical systems, etc., to reality. Along the way we have to make value judgments because “is” alone won’t get us to “ought”, but that doesn’t justify making up a god-guy-in-the-sky to make the pieces fit.

You seem to have skipped out on justifying how I supposedly work "from the inside out" (what's that supposed to mean, anyway?)

The reality of your lives bows to my philosophy if my philosophy accurately models reality. Your response appears to fallaciously beg that question.

If we look at what is meaningful to us, it becomes clear enough to most of us who value all people regardless of their culture, tribe, race, etc., what is to be considered: it is what we value, and since human beings value the same things if the categories are defined broadly enough, a moral, ethical and religious system can be constructed out of our preferences.

If you define categories broadly enough, the categories cease to be meaningful, too.

Why don't you try it? See what happens.

That is in fact what the theologies do all the time, but they don’t admit it.

Don't be silly. Of course it's admitted. It's a process that offers some hope for getting somewhere if there is a morality that is in turn grounded in an intelligent creator who has purposes in mind.

Instead they invent an imaginary mediator, which serves the dysfunctional purpose of permitting them not to think about what they’re really doing: “God said it, I believe it, end of discussion.”

Even if that were a fair representation of the theistic position (which it isn't), it's better than what you're able to suggest, as you prove below.

By contrast, the main questions for those who would construct our human systems to fit our human preferences are (1) how broadly or narrowly are we going to define the fundamental premises of the system (e.g., are we going to insist on something specific like traditional marriage and family, or will we settle on something broad like health, satisfaction, happiness and the like), and (2) how many outliers can the system tolerate and on what basis can it hold together taking them into account (e.g., how does it handle the Marquis de Sade). The mere fact that a system is imperfect is not enough of an objection to disqualify it. Remember, we’re trying to address the real world and live in it in the best way possible. There’s no guarantee in nature that I know of that we’re going to be able to do it perfectly.

Funny stuff, as predicted.

Let's say that human preferences evolved for some reason predominantly into those of de Sade. According to your view wouldn't those "real" human preferences be the operating rule? By what logical principle does the majority get to judge the morality of the minority, if both evolved by the same process?

Ah-ha! says Bryan, but look at those sugar ants. They have preferences, too. That’s debatable. Ants have mushroom bodies, not brains per se, and they are not processing information the way we are.

Sugar ants prefer sugar to grease. That's not debatable.

If you want to argue otherwise, it's up to you to define "debatable" in a way that communicates your intent.

I doubt that they experience emotion, but would of course defer to the biologists on that score. Just the same, (1) we have enough trouble dealing with our own species before we turn to others and (2) there’s no reason why an ethical system based on human preferences could not also encompass the preferences of other living beings.

If we prefer eating chicken, there seems to be a tendency toward a natural conflict with the preferences of chickens, AFAICT.

In fact, we have laws in most (or all) states (USA) against cruelty to animals. That seems to be based on our concern for their welfare. I don’t know that the Bible has anything to say about it, and several passages in the Bible seem to suggest that we need not detain ourselves with that.

Yeah? Could you name one?

What Bryan seems to be saying in this post and the one immediately preceding it is that if we invent a god-in-our-heads who tells us that it’s OK to step on sugar ants, then voila, all philosophical objections to that behavior may be safely cast aside.

How do you reconcile your perception with my specific disavowal of the divine command theory of ethics?

Is it because of a disregard for the truth on your part, or does it derive from some related form of carelessness?

"I'm already on record stating that our rights are endowed, and that they do not stem from divine command."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...dpost&pid=61098

Uh-huh, just like all the ancient tribes cast aside their brutality toward other humans by convincing themselves that God was on their side alone. That’s not a solution, it’s a rationalization, and he pulls it out of thin air. “I want to believe it, and if it were true it would allow me to do things as I wish to do them. Ergo, there is a God.”

If I simply wish to do things the way I wish to do them, then why should I bother creating a god to say so? I could simply claim it on my own authority, a la Nietzsche.

We seem to find you fitting your own charge via the logic you employ. I want Bryan's logic to be faulty, so I'll just make up some faulty logic and attribute it to Bryan!

And then he has the chutzpah to accuse someone else of utilizing a desire to fulfill itself. (There is a difference, of course, between trying to make up reality and trying to fashion an ethical system, but it’s obviously far too sophisticated for Bryan at the moment.)

Self-referential absurdity would be a problem in either case, wouldn't it? Or are we supposed to ignore that fact?

And in the process he challenges Melanie to point out his prejudices! Egads, if he can’t see them after what he has been told so far, I doubt that anyone can explain them to him. And this is Bryan’s idea of a sound philosophy?

Heh. What a smoke-blower. Note that he hasn't offered any criticism of my philosophy in logical terms. All he's got is ridicule/outrage and a straw man or two.

Then he is challenged with a direct question and immediate whines that he is being sandbagged.

Call it whining if you wish, but that's just empty rhetoric on your part. It's pretty obvious that Melanie doesn't have the ability to offer a coherent justification for morality, so she chose what most perceive as the easier path changing the subject, apparently hoping to go on the attack instead of having to play defense.

With attackers like you ex-Guests, I don't mind playing defense. It's easy against inept attackers such as you (note again that you don't have a single logical point in your entire post), and when you're done failing I'll just point out again how some of you are dodging the question.

He gives his answer, and he does clarify his position, and for a lot of us that’s about all we need to hear from Bryan.

No thanks, Bry. I’ll take a pass on your “system.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why, other than your emotional response to it (and your attempt to claim, in spite of my statement to the contrary, that I follow divine command theory)?