Well you cannot show me a post where I use scripture can you. I can think for myself without quoting an authority.
I can focus on concepts themselves like I have been showing you. You can do so too but perhaps you don't desire to do that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Well you cannot show me a post where I use scripture can you. I can think for myself without quoting an authority.
I can focus on concepts themselves like I have been showing you. You can do so too but perhaps you don't desire to do that.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Source please.
Remember, you claim that the definition of "genocide" SPECIFICALLY states humans killing humans.
This post shows that you have understood nothing of what we have been trying to explain to you so it's a waste of time to answer.
So you can't cite any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim of a genetic instinct to survive acquired by natural selection.
I'm educated enough to know that in order for an trait to be acquired by natural selection, there must be a change in allele frequency in the population. That means one segment of the population did not have that allele, and the segment of the population that did have the allele outproduced them. It's unfortunate that you lack that basic education.
Post number 130. You said and I quote: "God punished the other races of people in the Old Testament because of their disobedience. He did not order killings for no reason. In the specific context in the Old Testament is that JEWS were seen as a RACE and not a religion. We know this because in the NEW TESTAMENT all human beings who believe in GOD are Technically HIS PEOPLE not only JEWS. The name switch from JEWS to CHRISTIAN should be noticeable." This is not something you got from the Bible?
Yes, you're right. Subsequently thinking about what you said, I did understand what you meant.
I've understood what you've said as well as your incoherent claims can be understood. Obviously there is nothing erroneous in this:
Earlier you said that "we evolved a survival instinct." Make up your mind. Is the alleged special instinct for survival that humans have that you claim provides humans with objective moral rules a product of natural selection or not?
Evidently you just don't have a coherent idea about what you're espousing here. You say one thing about it, then contradict yourself. You say that all animals have this instinct, but it is only humans who conform their behavior to moral objectives. Male lions commit infanticide of the offspring sired by other lions. Humans everywhere would consider that immoral, and such act would be illegal everywhere.
The instinct to survive is not about acting morally or doing something that is intended to ensure the survival or well-being of a group or nation or culture or family or the species. The instinct to survive is entirely unrelated to treating others as one would wish others to treat oneself. When the Titanic was sinking, people were fighting to get on the lifeboats--at least one man dressed himself as a woman in order to get on one of the lifeboats, displacing a woman. That is an example of an act motivated by a desire to survive, but it's hardly a moral act.
The two are not the same: acts motivated by the desire to not die are not the self-sacrificing acts that are among humans' most moral acts.
Evidently you just don't have a coherent idea about what you're espousing here. You say one thing about it, then contradict yourself. You say that all animals have this instinct, but it is only humans who conform their behavior to moral objectives. Male lions commit infanticide of the offspring sired by other lions. Humans everywhere would consider that immoral, and such act would be illegal everywhere.
The instinct to survive is not about acting morally or doing something that is intended to ensure the survival or well-being of a group or nation or culture or family or the species. The instinct to survive is entirely unrelated to treating others as one would wish others to treat oneself. When the Titanic was sinking, people were fighting to get on the lifeboats--at least one man dressed himself as a woman in order to get on one of the lifeboats, displacing a woman. That is an example of an act motivated by a desire to survive, but it's hardly a moral act.
The two are not the same: acts motivated by the desire to not die are not the self-sacrificing acts that are among humans' most moral acts.
And from this speculation, you have gotten the idea that humans' moral rules are the product of the instinct to survive (which all animals have)!!!!!!
You need to try to untangle your ideas.
I'm afraid all the confusion is on your side. All organisms evolved an instinct for self-preservation including us. All the organisms the current organisms including us evolved from also had it. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. So when we say "humans evolved a survival instinct" we don't mean we evolved into modern humans and then evolved an instinct for self-preservation. I don't expect Nous to understand this. I just clarify for the rest of the readers.
From an objective point of view there are objectively right and wrong ways for organisms with an evolved survival/self-preservation instinct to behave. The objectively right way to behave is to behave in such a way that it increases chances of survival and the objectively wrong way is to behave in such a way that it decreases chances of survival. Since we are social animals living in communities and living in communities increases our chances of survival the objectively right way for us to behave is to behave in such a way that we keep our communities healthy and well functioning. The objectively right way for us to behave is to help each other survive because that increases our chances of survival. We call behaving the right way behaving morally and behaving the wrong way behaving immorally.
You can't provide a jot of evidence that substantiates any of these claims, either. Right?
I am certain no one doubts your ability to make assertions. What's doubtful is the ability to show that your assertions have any basis in reality.
You still haven't decided whether the humans' survival instinct was acquired by natural selection or was with us all along. Have you?
Your the one lacking the basic education. The above information is available on Wikipedia with remedial English. It is impossible dialoguing with someone that holds to an ancient paradigm based on Babylonian mythology.
The information you request is on the internet. I do not spoon fed voluntary ignorance.
Last edited:
So your earlier claim that "we evolved a survival instinct" is wrong.
So you still haven't provided any evidence or reasoning by which to connect an individual organism's instinct to avoid death and the self-sacrificing acts that are considered the most moral acts. Right?
The reason that you can't substantiate your ignorant claim about a genetic survival instinct is because there is no such evidence of such a gene or genes. The desire of an organism to avoid death is not acquired by a change in allele frequency. Let us know if you become educated enough to recognize those facts.
It is common among higher animals to give their lives to save the young and the herd. That is self-sacrificing acts.
In which case, these animals aren't exhibiting a survival instinct that motivates them to avoid death at all costs.
True, they were self-sacrificing acts by animals with compassion to save the young and the herd.
The survival instinct here is to protect the young and the herd.
The concepts came from the context of the words in the Bible. I did not say because the BIBLE SAYS x is moral then . . . . .
Morality is not defined by the Bible. Normative ethics work if there were no bible.
Are you serious? Do you really need a dictionary to define words only? You cannot define words from the contexts in which the words are given?
By now you should understand the same word CAN HAVE multiple contexts.
I have yet to see a context where genocide is not a crime and does not refer to a human being COMMITTING the act. That is there are no animals committing genocide.
Please provide a source where genocide refers to non human beings.
You should be able to think for yourself without running to dictionaries or WIKI.
If you are suggesting that I chose a poor way in the wording I used to express what I meant I can agree with that. Here is a better version:
The concept of genocide specifically expresses the idea that a human being is committing an act against OTHER a human beings . . .
Again non humans cannot commit genocide.
Last edited:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
All that and no source listed?
What happened, you get caught up in your sermon and forget to provide your source?
The fact of the matter is that you HAVE in fact seen a context where genocide was not committed by humans.