Duggars expecting SIXTEENTH grandchild. Great example for young people.

[Angel]

Morality does not stem from emotions. If I get excited about something there is no morality stemming from that. If I am annoyed by something there is no morality stemming from that. If I feel happy from doing something there is no morality stemming from that.

All right. Four minutes elapsed between my last post and your reply, which means you refuse to watch the 15 minute video and disabuse yourself of your mistaken notions. Fine. But I don't wish to discuss the matter with someone who's adamantly close-minded.

 

[roguenuke]

Not according to the latest science. Emotion (objective) and feeling (subjective) are not the same thing. Read in the links I posted. Your personal assertions, sans argument, are of no interest to me.

Morality is not an emotion. It is a judgement, a belief. It can be based on emotion, but that still doesn't make it objective. You are still using your personal beliefs as part of your morality.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Your argument from definition is worthless as an argument, and fallacious to boot:

What is "subjective" is in or of the mind.
Morality is in or of the mind.
Therefore, morality is subjective.


This argument suffers from invalid reasoning and begging the question.

Moreover, you fail to engage the science behind my argument. Indeed, you ignore/dismiss the scientific basis of my argument by citing Wikipedia! This is ridiculous, of course, but that I have to point out to you how ridiculous it is, is more ridiculous still.

There is no true science behind your argument because you are trying to use the research of a single person who claims morality is objective because it is based on emotions. But those things he describes in his research are emotional responses, and while they can themselves be measured, the causes of those emotional responses are in fact subjective. They can even change within the same person. And he didn't provide proof that morality is an emotion rather than based in part off of some emotions.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[devildavid]

All right. Four minutes elapsed between my last post and your reply, which means you refuse to watch the 15 minute video and disabuse yourself of your mistaken notions. Fine. But I don't wish to discuss the matter with someone who's adamantly close-minded.

But the video...the video! it is irrefutable!

 

[Angel]

Suit yourselves, gentlemen. If you refuse to read the linked articles in support of the thesis and post only to deny and dismiss it, I think it only fair for me to treat your posts in the same fashion. Good day to you both.

 

[Peter King]

Suit yourselves, gentlemen. If you refuse to read the linked articles in support of the thesis and post only to deny and dismiss it, I think it only fair for me to treat your posts in the same fashion. Good day to you both.

The problem I have with the Waal is that he is extrapolating ethics among primates to those of humans. That is a practice that IMHO only gets inaccurate results.

While it is nice to know about the evolution of morality, but what happens in bonobo society is not comparable to the morality among humans.We have a much more complex reaction process and we do not solve our problems like the bonobo's do. We don't copulate our problems away. Sex is their problem solving procedure. And if you solving skills end is sex, well than no problem is ever too great. It does not have the complex societal structures that we do. Another difference with humans is that bonobo's are a matriarchy and not a patriarchy as us humans mostly have.

The same with his study among chimps. Chimps do solve their problems in many the same ways as humans do. And while they also have a patriarchy structure as we humans mostly have, a lot of problems among chimps get solved with varying degrees of violence. Which also does not work that well among humans.

Don't get me wrong, de Waal is an interesting guy but he studied biology and is dabbling in ethics mostly based on his primate study knowledge, rather than other professors in that field who have a great education purely based on actual people studies and the results thereof.

Also, his views are just his opinion IMHO, not some kind of gospel over which no discussion or disagreement is possible. Ted talks are meant to advance discussion and not meant to quash other opinions/specialists in a field.

 

[Angel]

Emotion is the visceral neurophysiological, measurable and objective response/reaction of Man and Beast.
Feeling is the subjective awareness of emotion in Man and perhaps in Beast as well.

This is science speaking.
Please stop the caviling -- you're dragging this forum down to the level of Beliefs and Skepticism, the very nadir of critical thought.

 

[Peter King]

Emotion is the visceral neurophysiological, measurable and objective response/reaction of Man and Beast.
Feeling is the subjective awareness of emotion in Man and perhaps in Beast as well.

This is science speaking.
Please stop the caviling -- you're dragging this forum down to the level of Beliefs and Skepticism, the very nadir of critical thought.

Stop complaining, because it is not the rest of us who is dragging this forum to the level of belief and skepticism it is because you are wrongly trying to elevating this discussion into something that does not belong here. If you want to have a purely scientific discussion go and start a thread about that in the Academia/Science and technology section. If not stop trying to be the thread master to further/force this into creating a pseudo scientific discussing in which you are, without any grounds or justification, trying to silence people who disagree with you and who are having an open, non-acedemic discussion about what they see as the truth.

Also emotion is highly subjective as not everybody has the same and an objective response to something. Reaction is often as subjective as can be because no 2 people are exactly alike.

Morality when it comes to sexuality is subjective as hell as again no 2 people are the same. Say gay person 1, a young man, may look at a woman without her top on and say, cool, who cares. I do not find it offensive or sexual and IMO free the nipple. Whereas gay person number 2, a bit older man who first had a family and has 2 girls would find a woman without her top on highly offensive to his sensibilities and would find it a moral outrage that such a thing would be allowed. What if his girls would see something like that.

People's moralities are not cookie cutter dies where one presses an emotion and the same moral view comes out for everybody. It is not like that as again no 2 people are the same. My mother has a very different moral and emotional spectrum compared to me.

 

[Angel]

Stop complaining, because it is not the rest of us who is dragging this forum to the level of belief and skepticism it is because you are wrongly trying to elevating this discussion into something that does not belong here. If you want to have a purely scientific discussion go and start a thread about that in the Academia/Science and technology section. If not stop trying to be the thread master to further/force this into creating a pseudo scientific discussing in which you are, without any grounds or justification, trying to silence people who disagree with you and who are having an open, non-acedemic discussion about what they see as the truth.

Also emotion is highly subjective as not everybody has the same and an objective response to something. Reaction is often as subjective as can be because no 2 people are exactly alike.

Morality when it comes to sexuality is subjective as hell as again no 2 people are the same. Say gay person 1, a young man, may look at a woman without her top on and say, cool, who cares. I do not find it offensive or sexual and IMO free the nipple. Whereas gay person number 2, a bit older man who first had a family and has 2 girls would find a woman without her top on highly offensive to his sensibilities and would find it a moral outrage that such a thing would be allowed. What if his girls would see something like that.

People's moralities are not cookie cutter dies where one presses an emotion and the same moral view comes out for everybody. It is not like that as again no 2 people are the same. My mother has a very different moral and emotional spectrum compared to me.

Emotion is the visceral neurophysiological, measurable and objective response/reaction of Man and Beast.
Feeling is the subjective awareness of emotion in Man and perhaps in Beast as well.

This is science speaking.
Please stop the caviling -- you're dragging this forum down to the level of Beliefs and Skepticism, the very nadir of critical thought.

I refuse to underwrite your incomprehension. Stop dragging us into the nadir with you.

 

[Peter King]

I refuse to underwrite your incomprehension. Stop dragging us into the nadir with you.

It is you who is dragging down us into the BS zone. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension, there is something wrong with your refusal to discuss the matters we are trying to discuss here because you cannot convince anybody of your illogical views.

 

[Angel]

It is you who is dragging down us into the BS zone. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension, there is something wrong with your refusal to discuss the matters we are trying to discuss here because you cannot convince anybody of your illogical views.

^^^^
Ordure.

Emotion is the visceral neurophysiological, measurable and objective response/reaction of Man and Beast.
Feeling is the subjective awareness of emotion in Man and perhaps in Beast as well.

This is science speaking.
Please stop the caviling -- you're dragging this forum down to the level of Beliefs and Skepticism, the very nadir of critical thought.

 

[Peter King]

^^^^
Ordure.

More BS and whining. You are too afraid to discuss this because you know you are wrong. You have no evidence and you have no convincing theories as to why morality is objective.

 

[Angel]

More BS and whining. You are too afraid to discuss this because you know you are wrong. You have no evidence and you have no convincing theories as to why morality is objective.

As to the distinction between emotion and feeling, there's nothing to discuss. It's science. And I'm not about to tolerate ignorant caviling about this.

Emotion is the visceral neurophysiological, measurable and objective response/reaction of Man and Beast.
Feeling is the subjective awareness of emotion in Man and perhaps in Beast as well.

This is science speaking.
Please stop the caviling -- you're dragging this forum down to the level of Beliefs and Skepticism, the very nadir of critical thought.

 

[Peter King]

As to the distinction between emotion and feeling, there's nothing to discuss. It's science. And I'm not about to tolerate ignorant caviling about this.

Repeating a comment time and time again does not make it any more believable. There is loads of things to discuss because it is not science, it opinion.

And I could care less what you want to tolerate, whining about fellow posters is not going to solve the issue that you are wrong with your opinion.

 

[Angel]

Repeating a comment time and time again does not make it any more believable. There is loads of things to discuss because it is not science, it opinion.

And I could care less what you want to tolerate, whining about fellow posters is not going to solve the issue that you are wrong with your opinion.

It's science, Mr King. Emotion and feeling are not the same thing. Take up your disagreement with science.

 

[Peter King]

It's science, Mr King. Emotion and feeling are not the same thing. Take up your disagreement with science.

No, it is not science purely because you say so. Your arguments do not hold water and that is the simple reality of the matter.

 

[Angel]

No, it is not science purely because you say so. Your arguments do not hold water and that is the simple reality of the matter.

It's science because science says so. My arguments are arguments -- unlike your assertions -- and they take science as their basis. You are conflating my arguments about morality with the scientific distinction they are based on. They're two difference universes of discourse. You don't seem to be able to keep them apart.

 

[Peter King]

It's science because science says so. My arguments are arguments -- unlike your assertions -- and they take science as their basis. You are conflating my arguments about morality with the scientific distinction they are based on. They're two difference universes of discourse. You don't seem to be able to keep them apart.

And you are not able to understand that what you call science I do not call science. It is pseudo psychological mambo jambo which you have not proved or made even believable.

 

[Angel]

And you are not able to understand that what you call science I do not call science. It is pseudo psychological mambo jambo which you have not proved or made even believable.

Evolutionary biology and primatology are pseudo-sciences? Who knew?
I bet you that you can't tell me the fundamental difference between the view expressed in the scientific links I posted and the argument I'm making in this thread. A gentleman's bet.
Let's see whether or not you know what you're posting about.

 

[Peter King]

Evolutionary biology and primatology are pseudo-sciences? Who knew?
I bet you that you can't tell me the fundamental difference between the view expressed in the scientific links I posted and the argument I'm making in this thread. A gentleman's bet.
Let's see whether or not you know what you're posting about.

You mean de Waal again? Because I was not talking about him, I am talking about the pseudo science of psychology. What we in the Netherlands call "psychologie van de koude grond", or in English armchair analysis is not the same thing as human psychology. We might be closely related to our primate brethren but we are not chimps nor are we bonobo's.

You parade out a professor of biology and a professor of primate behavior (as in animals) and then claim this goes 1 on 1 for us humans and I already stated that is nonsense. We are very different kinds of beasts from the chimps or better yet the bonobo's.

And you are posting ANIMAL psychology and falsely claim this proves anything for us humans. There might be things that will be valid for both species but we are NOT bonobo's, we are not chimps and de Waal is not a human psychologist. He knows a lot of primate biology and has gotten to know a lot about chimp and bonobo psychology but these 2 species are NOT humans.

Your scientific links would be interesting if we were discussing chimp morality or bonobo morality, but we are not, we are discussing human morality and while you may extrapolate facts/opinions of the Waal and others on humans, this does not mean it is accurate.

And while chimpanzees have morality to some degree, they are also the kind of animal that goes around and kills their own species, their own group members and have no problem killing humans. Even humans who have never done them any wrong and who have cared for them from day one. Morality might not be solely human, it does not mean that primate studies are applicable to our morality nor does it prove that our morality is objective.

 

[Angel]

You mean de Waal again? Because I was not talking about him, I am talking about the pseudo science of psychology. What we in the Netherlands call "psychologie van de koude grond", or in English armchair analysis is not the same thing as human psychology. We might be closely related to our primate brethren but we are not chimps nor are we bonobo's.

You parade out a professor of biology and a professor of primate behavior (as in animals) and then claim this goes 1 on 1 for us humans and I already stated that is nonsense. We are very different kinds of beasts from the chimps or better yet the bonobo's.

And you are posting ANIMAL psychology and falsely claim this proves anything for us humans. There might be things that will be valid for both species but we are NOT bonobo's, we are not chimps and de Waal is not a human psychologist. He knows a lot of primate biology and has gotten to know a lot about chimp and bonobo psychology but these 2 species are NOT humans.

Your scientific links would be interesting if we were discussing chimp morality or bonobo morality, but we are not, we are discussing human morality and while you may extrapolate facts/opinions of the Waal and others on humans, this does not mean it is accurate.

And while chimpanzees have morality to some degree, they are also the kind of animal that goes around and kills their own species, their own group members and have no problem killing humans. Even humans who have never done them any wrong and who have cared for them from day one. Morality might not be solely human, it does not mean that primate studies are applicable to our morality nor does it prove that our morality is objective.

Are humans not primates, Mr King?

Anyway, only here do you get to something substantial:

Your scientific links would be interesting if we were discussing chimp morality or bonobo morality, but we are not, we are discussing human morality and while you may extrapolate facts/opinions of the Waal and others on humans, this does not mean it is accurate.

Yes, the scientists are studying primate "moral" behavior in analogy to human morality.
I, on the other hand, am arguing in the other direction. I am arguing a thesis about human morality in analogy to primate behavior.

Do you follow this?

 

[Peter King]

Are humans not primates, Mr King?

Yes, but a human is not a chimp, nor are we orangutans, gorilla's or bonobo's. We are a more evolved animal than those which de Waal studies.

Anyway, only here do you get to something substantial:

Yes, the scientists are studying primate "moral" behavior in analogy to human morality.
I, on the other hand, am arguing in the other direction. I am arguing a thesis about human morality in analogy to primate behavior.

Do you follow this?

I follow you but you would be wrong. Human morality has a greater propensity for wickedness than bonobo's for example are capable of. We are also not chimps where one alpha male gets to sniff all the butts of all the chimp ladies and rapes/has sex with them at his convenience. And as stated, some degree of comparison may be found between some primates and human beings, but this does not mean that we can gather definitive conclusions about human morality and the subjective nature of the workings of a human mind and it's morality from studying animals that throw their crap at their veterinary medical treatment staff. Nor do we as humans beat one another half to death if we want to take over the alpha male position. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Where some human like behavior might be similar to that of primates, we are way too complex as a creature to glean more than a rudimentary understanding of our own morality by studying chimps/bonobo's.

 

[devildavid]

Are humans not primates, Mr King?

Anyway, only here do you get to something substantial:

Yes, the scientists are studying primate "moral" behavior in analogy to human morality.
I, on the other hand, am arguing in the other direction. I am arguing a thesis about human morality in analogy to primate behavior.

Do you follow this?

Science does not use analogy.

 

[Deuce]

It's science because science says so. My arguments are arguments -- unlike your assertions -- and they take science as their basis. You are conflating my arguments about morality with the scientific distinction they are based on. They're two difference universes of discourse. You don't seem to be able to keep them apart.

Please link the research you're referring to.

 

[Peter King]

Yes, but a human is not a chimp, nor are we orangutans, gorilla's or bonobo's. We are a more evolved animal than those which de Waal studies.



I follow you but you would be wrong. Human morality has a greater propensity for wickedness than bonobo's for example are capable of. We are also not chimps where one alpha male gets to sniff all the butts of all the chimp ladies and rapes/has sex with them at his convenience. And as stated, some degree of comparison may be found between some primates and human beings, but this does not mean that we can gather definitive conclusions about human morality and the subjective nature of the workings of a human mind and it's morality from studying animals that throw their crap at their veterinary medical treatment staff. Nor do we as humans beaSt one another half to death if we want to take over the alpha male position. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Where some human like behavior might be similar to that of primates, we are way too complex as a creature to glean more than a rudimentary understanding of our own morality by studying chimps/bonobo's.

Oops, that is what you get when you are a bit sleepy when typing the word beast, change in large red letter