Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Truly Enlightened]

What is your justification for calling an act immoral then?

Any act, that by the very nature of the act when applied, will cause the greatest amount of harm, suffering, and pain to any members of the species, is what I believe is an immoral act. Also, any act, that by Its inherent nature alone, makes it the least beneficial for the survival of the species, is also immoral. I know of no culture on the planet that considers the act of killing a benefit to society, without justification. Therefore, it is inherently immoral. Hence, laws are enacted to protect society from this immoral act. Why can't you understand? Why would we need to justify any moral acts? We only need to justify immoral acts. Why do you keep saying, any act that we need to justify becomes a moral act? I just don't understand. In either case, it's just my opinion.

 

[Audie]

The comment "contrived rationales constitutes a consensus", was directed at the 2-3 people that disagree with my interpretation of a moral act. You implied in your statement " Do you find anyone agrees with your idiosyncratic definition of morality" , that no one agrees with my interpretation/definition of a moral act. 2-3 people's contrived opinions do not suggest that that no one agrees. In any case, my statement had nothing to do with you on any personal level.

Somehow I don't think clarity would make any difference at all.

I somehow think you cannot do it.

 

[ArtieE]

Any act, that by the very nature of the act when applied, will cause the greatest amount of harm, suffering, and pain to any members of the species, is what I believe is an immoral act.

But what if not acting causes the greatest amount of harm, suffering, and pain to more members of the species than if you had acted? Then you would have caused the greatest amount of harm, suffering and pain by not acting...

Also, any act, that by Its inherent nature alone, makes it the least beneficial for the survival of the species, is also immoral.

But then by your logic your act of killing a person before he can kill a lot of others can't be immoral since killing one is more beneficial for the survival of the species than letting him kill many...

Hence, laws are enacted to protect society from this immoral act. Why can't you understand?

Because laws are enacted to protect society from unlawful acts. And killing one to save others isn't an unlawful act but a right and moral act.

Why would we need to justify any moral acts? We only need to justify immoral acts. Why do you keep saying, any act that we need to justify becomes a moral act? I just don't understand. In either case, it's just my opinion.

We don't justify moral acts. We justify acts. You can't justify an immoral act. An immoral act is per definition an immoral act and can't be justified and become a moral act. Is that what you don't understand?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Although the killing act causes the greatest amount of harm in every case(by its definition), it is not a bad thing. It is a good thing as long as it is done for a good reason. It is a bad thing only when it is done for a bad reason. As long as any act is done for a good reason, there are no immoral acts. They automatically become moral acts, if they are done for a good reason. The acts of killing, rape, torture, mutilation, genocide, are all good things, as long as they are also done for a good reason. In other words, any act is morally neutral, until there is a good reason to do them. I get it, I simply disagree. I believe that the act of killing is an immoral act, by its own definition. This is why the act must be justified or excused in the first place. Any moral act is inherently good and moral, and never needs to be justified or excused. This is my opinion, and I outlined why it is my opinion.

Since you ignore, deflect, and avoid addressing any of the issues and examples that I outline, I think we are just wasting each other's time. I can't get you to answer a single question, without getting the same repetitive rote learned answers, excuses, or answering questions with a question. Maybe I'm just thinking outside of the box. So, unless you are going to address any of my concerns and examples, I think we're done here.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I somehow think you cannot do it.

I simply want to avoid confrontation, no matter how often it is provoked. We both know how that will end. Since ONE person(BilliardsBall) clearly understands my interpretation of a moral act(posts' #1105, #1107, #1136, and #1143), your statement/question is clearly incorrect, and was meant only to insinuated and imply that no one agrees with my definition of morality. Even you stated that rape is a bad thing(post #1108), as well as the murder of children for fun(post #1119). So are bad things moral or immoral? I'm not interested in whether they are absolutely moral, or by whom. Just being intuitively moral or immoral will do. Can you think of a case where rape or murder are morally justified? Or, the killing of children for fun(or for any reason)? Rational reasons only.

This kind of intellectual dishonesty clearly indicates purpose. Therefore, I somehow feel that your interests do not lie in the clarity of my interpretation of terms. Especially when the definition of those terms are clearly self-evident and obviously implicit within my statements. I also don't feel that you are interested in any honest discourse, especially when you ask a question that is based on an incorrect, and a self-serving assumption. So jumping through unnecessary hoops for ego-gratification is not my idea of an honest debate.

 

[ArtieE]

Although the killing act causes the greatest amount of harm in every case(by its definition)

No it doesn't. To cause the greatest amount of harm you would have to kill absolutely everybody. Just killing one causes nowhere near the greatest amount of harm you could possibly cause.

it is not a bad thing. It is a good thing as long as it is done for a good reason. It is a bad thing only when it is done for a bad reason. As long as any act is done for a good reason, there are no immoral acts. They automatically become moral acts, if they are done for a good reason. The acts of killing, rape, torture, mutilation, genocide, are all good things, as long as they are also done for a good reason. In other words, any act is morally neutral, until there is a good reason to do them. I get it, I simply disagree. I believe that the act of killing is an immoral act, by its own definition. This is why the act must be justified or excused in the first place.

If the act of killing was an immoral act by definition it would mean that everybody who has ever killed in defence of their country or members of their society or friends or family or themselves have done something wrong and immoral. Are you really sure about that?

Since you ignore, deflect, and avoid addressing any of the issues and examples that I outline, I think we are just wasting each other's time. I can't get you to answer a single question, without getting the same repetitive rote learned answers, excuses, or answering questions with a question. Maybe I'm just thinking outside of the box. So, unless you are going to address any of my concerns and examples, I think we're done here.

Yes you are thinking outside the box. Which is why so many of your issues and examples and concerns and questions can't be answered logically and rationally.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No it doesn't. To cause the greatest amount of harm you would have to kill absolutely everybody. Just killing one causes nowhere near the greatest amount of harm you could possibly cause.If the act of killing was an immoral act by definition it would mean that everybody who has ever killed in defence of their country or members of their society or friends or family or themselves have done something wrong and immoral. Are you really sure about that?Yes you are thinking outside the box. Which is why so many of your issues and examples and concerns and questions can't be answered logically and rationally.

If I kill a fish, it will cause the greatest amount of harm to the fish. If I kill a dog it will cause the greatest amount of harm to the dog. If I kill another person, it will also cause the greatest amount of harm to that person. In fact, any act of killing will cause the greatest amount of harm to whatever is being killed. Hence, the act of killing causes the greatest amount of harm in every, every, every single case. You're not suggesting that the amount of harm, is dependent on the number of those harmed? Which act causes the greatest amount of harm, spitting in someone's face, slapping someone. or blowing their head off? Or does it depend on the number? Take your time. Do you really think that killing causes the least amount of harm, unless everyone is killed. Does that even make sense to you?

This is not about self-defence. This is not about protecting the one you love, family, friends, or the little bitty baby. We have special circumstance that allow for this act to be excused and justified. This is about the act of killing itself, as a moral or immoral act. Wrong and immoral are two separate things. The act may be immoral, but it can still be the right thing to do under certain circumstances. If you misrepresent anything I say again, there will not be a response. So again, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Audie]

I simply want to avoid confrontation, no matter how often it is provoked. We both know how that will end. Since ONE person(BilliardsBall) clearly understands my interpretation of a moral act(posts' #1105, #1107, #1136, and #1143), your statement/question is clearly incorrect, and was meant only to insinuated and imply that no one agrees with my definition of morality. Even you stated that rape is a bad thing(post #1108), as well as the murder of children for fun(post #1119). So are bad things moral or immoral? I'm not interested in whether they are absolutely moral, or by whom. Just being intuitively moral or immoral will do. Can you think of a case where rape or murder are morally justified? Or, the killing of children for fun(or for any reason)? Rational reasons only.

This kind of intellectual dishonesty clearly indicates purpose. Therefore, I somehow feel that your interests do not lie in the clarity of my interpretation of terms. Especially when the definition of those terms are clearly self-evident and obviously implicit within my statements. I also don't feel that you are interested in any honest discourse, especially when you ask a question that is based on an incorrect, and a self-serving assumption. So jumping through unnecessary hoops for ego-gratification is not my idea of an honest debate.

Two paragraphs of calumny re on my motives
and character instead of a definition seem
to imply that you cannot do it.

But perhaps a guided meditation may yet
bring relief from rage and confusion.

"Even I" stated that rape is a bad thing?
A bit of uncalled for and extraordinarily
inappropriate editorial attack, "even".

My personal experience with same was
horrendous. Unequivocally bad.

But what does that mean about the universal
immorality of "rape"?

Is statutory rape a universal immorality?
Or statutoty rape does not count?

What about extenuating or aggravating
circumstances?

In Rome, a slave or prostitute, by statute,
could not be raped, though there might be a
property crime.

A woman's consent was not an issue in rape.

"Rape" is self evident? The Romans saw things
differently. What is evident to who?

In Britain, you shoot an intruder, off you go to
jail. In Texas, they will say "Good work."

Self evident?

What us rape or murder here is socially
acceptable there.

The word "rape", like "murder" is completely
inadequate for saying what is or is not
moral, let alone an absolute
universal standard. Some narrow definition is
needed, to make it a universal.

Been hoping you and BB could see that.

If Genghis Kahn had come along-and he did
delight in some harsh and bsrbaric acts-
If he came along and said,

"Take an unsuspecting
Virgin, ravage her most cruelly in front of
all, or all the city will be raped and burned alive.

The virgin will be saved, only to be forced to
watch her family destroyed, then will be raped
by my soldiers before being slowly burned to death.
Choose."

Plz apply a moral absolute here.
Or maybe the Kahn is in a better mood.

"Kill the oldest and sickest in your towm,
mercifully and by surprise."

Absolutely morally wrong to kill him?

Do you acknowledge the existence of extenuating
circumstances?

Is there a moral and honourable course of action
for the one forced to commit the act, afterwards?

Finally, acknowleding of course that it is no
less terrible for the girl regardless of what
the Great Kahn said-

Is it actually immoral to have raped her?

Both right and wrong at the same time?

 

[ArtieE]

Do you really think that killing causes the least amount of harm, unless everyone is killed. Does that even make sense to you?

Of course the sentence "Do you really think that killing causes the least amount of harm, unless everyone is killed" doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense period.

This is not about self-defence. This is not about protecting the one you love, family, friends, or the little bitty baby. We have special circumstance that allow for this act to be excused and justified. This is about the act of killing itself, as a moral or immoral act. Wrong and immoral are two separate things.

Immoral and wrong are synonyms... I found great synonyms for "immoral" on the new Thesaurus.com!

The act may be immoral, but it can still be the right thing to do under certain circumstances.

Huh!? Do you know what a contradiction in terms is?

 

[Audie]

Of course the sentence "Do you really think that killing causes the least amount of harm, unless everyone is killed" doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense period.Immoral and wrong are synonyms... I found great synonyms for "immoral" on the new Thesaurus.com!Huh!? Do you know what a contradiction in terms is?

Good q.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Two paragraphs of calumny re on my motives
and character instead of a definition seem
to imply that you cannot do it.

But perhaps a guided meditation may yet
bring relief from rage and confusion.

"Even I" stated that rape is a bad thing?
A bit of uncalled for and extraordinarily
inappropriate editorial attack, "even".

My personal experience with same was
horrendous. Unequivocally bad.

But what does that mean about the universal
immorality of "rape"?

Is statutory rape a universal immorality?
Or statutoty rape does not count?

What about extenuating or aggravating
circumstances?

In Rome, a slave or prostitute, by statute,
could not be raped, though there might be a
property crime.

A woman's consent was not an issue in rape.

"Rape" is self evident? The Romans saw things
differently. What is evident to who?

In Britain, you shoot an intruder, off you go to
jail. In Texas, they will say "Good work."

Self evident?

What us rape or murder here is socially
acceptable there.

The word "rape", like "murder" is completely
inadequate for saying what is or is not
moral, let alone an absolute
universal standard. Some narrow definition is
needed, to make it a universal.

Been hoping you and BB could see that.

If Genghis Kahn had come along-and he did
delight in some harsh and bsrbaric acts-
If he came along and said,

"Take an unsuspecting
Virgin, ravage her most cruelly in front of
all, or all the city will be raped and burned alive.

The virgin will be saved, only to be forced to
watch her family destroyed, then will be raped
by my soldiers before being slowly burned to death.
Choose."

Plz apply a moral absolute here.
Or maybe the Kahn is in a better mood.

"Kill the oldest and sickest in your towm,
mercifully and by surprise."

Absolutely morally wrong to kill him?

Do you acknowledge the existence of extenuating
circumstances?

Is there a moral and honourable course of action
for the one forced to commit the act, afterwards?

Finally, acknowleding of course that it is no
less terrible for the girl regardless of what
the Great Kahn said-

Is it actually immoral to have raped her?

Both right and wrong at the same time?

My deepest sympathies. No one should have to go through such a horrendous physical and emotional ordeal. I can't imagine how violated and angry you must feel. The trauma from your ordeal is not so easy to repress or forget. Again my deepest solicitude.

In California, a husband can't rape his wife. Consent is also not a requirement. However, a husband can still be charged with rape if he drugs his wife, or he consents or plots for another person to rape her. There will always be extenuating circumstance for any act, violent or non-violent. There are family honour and hate crimes that are committed (murder, rape, mutilation, kidnapping, etc.) in the middle east, that are condoned or ignored(look the other way) by their legal system. This in no way changes the nature of the act itself. The nature of the act is still violent in all situations. Killing will always produce death. raping will always produce a sense of violation and helplessness. Torture will always produce physical and emotional pain, and kidnapping will always produce a loss of a person's liberty. There are no exceptions in the overwhelming majority of cases. I say majority only because NOTHING is absolute. There are those that may enjoy pain, suffering, or their loss of liberty. There are those that because of their suffering, may want to end their life. I was never talking about absolutes especially in the moral sense. In my opinion morality is not absolute, subjective, or universal. I believe that morality is objective and culturally-relative, because subjective morality can't have any truth values attached. I'm speaking only in the majority of cases. Was the average German soldier morally responsible for his part in the murder of millions of Jews? Did those parents sacrificing their children to Zeus to guarantee a better harvesting season, morally responsible? Is unnecessary circumcision, or T&A operations in children morally responsible?

The extenuating circumstances, the justification, or the associated social norms, customs, and practices of the time and region, are all irrelevant to the nature of the act itself. I'm sure the person being violated is not thinking about justification, extenuating circumstances, or the social customs, practices, and norms of his society. These will all become relevant after the fact/act.

I describe morality from an evolutionary perspective. The basic instinctual need of all species on the planet is survival, and the passing on of their genetic material to their progeny. All species need water, air, food, shelter, and protection from the elements to have the best chance for survival. All acts that increases the species chances for survival are necessary, and all acts that decrease the species chances of survival are unnecessary. Nature has given every species the genetic tools to survive and adapt to changes in their environment. Nature has no control of how the species use those tools. In my opinion, the only difference between nature's perspective and an evolved human's perspective is INTENT. We devise or create our own cultural sense of ethics and morality. We determine what behavior would be in the best interest of, and most beneficial to society. Not always in the best interest of the individual. These rules can be arbitrary, ambiguous, specific, unclear, and include many exceptions. The most basic rules that can defines a moral act, is any act that by the nature of the act itself, will cause the least amount of harm, and(this "and" is important) produce the most amount of benefit to society. All actions falling under this description are never illegal, immoral, justifiable, or need any mitigating circumstances. Any of these actions are by their nature Moral. Any action that does cause harm, and(not or) is the least beneficial to society is an immoral act. Homicide, rape, torture, genocide, are examples of acts that will all cause the greatest amount of harm, and MUST be justified to determine whether their actions are beneficial to society or the individual(self-defence). I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing. Maybe we also should simply agree to disagree?

Again, my sincerest sympathy and support.

 

[Audie]

My deepest sympathies. No one should have to go through such a horrendous physical and emotional ordeal. I can't imagine how violated and angry you must feel. The trauma from your ordeal is not so easy to repress or forget. Again my deepest solicitude.

In California, a husband can't rape his wife. Consent is also not a requirement. However, a husband can still be charged with rape if he drugs his wife, or he consents or plots for another person to rape her. There will always be extenuating circumstance for any act, violent or non-violent. There are family honour and hate crimes that are committed (murder, rape, mutilation, kidnapping, etc.) in the middle east, that are condoned or ignored(look the other way) by their legal system. This in no way changes the nature of the act itself. The nature of the act is still violent in all situations. Killing will always produce death. raping will always produce a sense of violation and helplessness. Torture will always produce physical and emotional pain, and kidnapping will always produce a loss of a person's liberty. There are no exceptions in the overwhelming majority of cases. I say majority only because NOTHING is absolute. There are those that may enjoy pain, suffering, or their loss of liberty. There are those that because of their suffering, may want to end their life. I was never talking about absolutes especially in the moral sense. In my opinion morality is not absolute, subjective, or universal. I believe that morality is objective and culturally-relative, because subjective morality can't have any truth values attached. I'm speaking only in the majority of cases. Was the average German soldier morally responsible for his part in the murder of millions of Jews? Did those parents sacrificing their children to Zeus to guarantee a better harvesting season, morally responsible? Is unnecessary circumcision, or T&A operations in children morally responsible?

The extenuating circumstances, the justification, or the associated social norms, customs, and practices of the time and region, are all irrelevant to the nature of the act itself. I'm sure the person being violated is not thinking about justification, extenuating circumstances, or the social customs, practices, and norms of his society. These will all become relevant after the fact/act.

I describe morality from an evolutionary perspective. The basic instinctual need of all species on the planet is survival, and the passing on of their genetic material to their progeny. All species need water, air, food, shelter, and protection from the elements to have the best chance for survival. All acts that increases the species chances for survival are necessary, and all acts that decrease the species chances of survival are unnecessary. Nature has given every species the genetic tools to survive and adapt to changes in their environment. Nature has no control of how the species use those tools. In my opinion, the only difference between nature's perspective and an evolved human's perspective is INTENT. We devise or create our own cultural sense of ethics and morality. We determine what behavior would be in the best interest of, and most beneficial to society. Not always in the best interest of the individual. These rules can be arbitrary, ambiguous, specific, unclear, and include many exceptions. The most basic rules that can defines a moral act, is any act that by the nature of the act itself, will cause the least amount of harm, and(this "and" is important) produce the most amount of benefit to society. All actions falling under this description are never illegal, immoral, justifiable, or need any mitigating circumstances. Any of these actions are by their nature Moral. Any action that does cause harm, and(not or) is the least beneficial to society is an immoral act. Homicide, rape, torture, genocide, are examples of acts that will all cause the greatest amount of harm, and MUST be justified to determine whether their actions are beneficial to society or the individual(self-defence). I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing. Maybe we also should simply agree to disagree?

Again, my sincerest sympathy and support.

I am done with the topic, which I found of no great interest anyway. If one got past all the word, it would likely turn out we were agreeing to agree.

I hope, and this is in no way said as some sort of snark, that you will tryto write in a more concise manner. For me, at least, one of your big solid blocks of repetitive text read like running a barge into a cornfield, as a friend would phrase it. Please?
You lose your message if it isnt read, and you do have good ideas.


To the extent that I had a point, it is that a terribly
harmful act is not necessarily an immoral one.

Faced with such as a Genghis Khan type choice
I would hope I'd have the strength to do the unimaginable. What then?

I suppose I would want to kill myself, to atone
And that I would not be able to, because that is
the easy way out. I'd probably have to spend my life in guilt, and working so hard to do "good works" in
whatever recompense that would bring.

As for my own unfortunate experience, I only said that in response to your "even I would admit" that violence
against women is wrong. I accept your words, with the
understanding that I dont seek or want anyone's pity.
For those who know me, a bit of understanding is nice
when it is called for.

If you, too, would commit an act of violence (or whatever is normally morally wrong) with reluctance
and guilt if the circumstances demanded-and
did not consider it morally wrong to take such action-then we are in agreement.

What do you say?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am done with the topic, which I found of no great interest anyway. If one got past all the word, it would likely turn out we were agreeing to agree.

I hope, and this is in no way said as some sort of snark, that you will tryto write in a more concise manner. For me, at least, one of your big solid blocks of repetitive text read like running a barge into a cornfield, as a friend would phrase it. Please?
You lose your message if it isnt read, and you do have good ideas.


To the extent that I had a point, it is that a terribly
harmful act is not necessarily an immoral one.

Faced with such as a Genghis Khan type choice
I would hope I'd have the strength to do the unimaginable. What then?

I suppose I would want to kill myself, to atone
And that I would not be able to, because that is
the easy way out. I'd probably have to spend my life in guilt, and working so hard to do "good works" in
whatever recompense that would bring.

As for my own unfortunate experience, I only said that in response to your "even I would admit" that violence
against women is wrong. I accept your words, with the
understanding that I dont seek or want anyone's pity.
For those who know me, a bit of understanding is nice
when it is called for.

If you, too, would commit an act of violence (or whatever is normally morally wrong) with reluctance
and guilt if the circumstances demanded-and
did not consider it morally wrong to take such action-then we are in agreement.

What do you say?

We are in agreement.