Where is your list?
i have ignored my argument? i have changed it? something i never had in the first place? how does one change a noexistent argument? document these insane allegations
"never had' as in a flawed argument; I suppose simply comprehension is beyond you? As for how you have changed your arguments, consider the contradictions below:
------
BLOCK TWO:
Next,
Spock:
i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems. it is the means by which we ensure our survival as a species. witness the altruism involved b/w a parent and child. the co-operation within groups/species/etc these tactics enhance survival. it is instinctive.
Point:
1. "Basic" morality is hardwired into our systems. It is evident in the "altruism between a parent and a child".
Contradicts with:
social instincts (hard wired) provide the foundation to a basic morality
----------
BLOCK THREE:
And then,
Spock:
then again perhaps more distinctions should be made. namely b/w ethics and morality. is it necessary? god dictates morality, the group dictates ethics.
personally it seems superfluous and redundant
Point:
1. God dictates morality and the group dictates ethics.
Contradicts with:
i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems.
If you claim that it was due to advent of monotheism that had morality invested in religion, then why did societies before monotheism have morality? Does “God” dictate to you at birth what your morality is?
Too many conflicting assertions.
----------
BLOCK ZERO:
and with this, you engage in gross generalities while ignoring the various subtleties and diff expressions of law. we have evolved into complex societies and laws now deal with issues other than morality. think technicalities! (mrn) what moral basis would you assign to litter laws?
Without morality on what basis does law reside?
-----
BLOCK ONE
HED:
I also think that it is this need for organization, accountability, etc within societies that prompted the meshing of morality into religion-- to give it more authority.
Spock:
the needs you mention have nothing to do with investing morality with a supernatural origin in order to enforce compliance within a society. the objective is fear of divine retribution. societies have ranged from the simple to the complex, from the formal to the informal. to claim that all societies require "organization, accountability" means nothing.
You make two points:
1. The "invest"ment of morality with religion was not to give it more authority, but rather, because of a fear of retribution from a divinity.
Contradicts with:
excellent. you merely expand on my idea. do you think i am disputing the stated "hierarchy". why point that fact out?
The hierarchy that puts the divine ahead of the real means that when you invest morality in religion, you give it more authority.
2. Societies range from the simple to the complex and that the claim that they need organization and accountability to hold their order is meaningless
Contradicts with:
first, where is it i said that societies do not need organization? the very concept of a society implies organization. my distinction was the level of org.
Besides, it is irrelevant what level of organization the society has. If it functions as a society, it will have a moral basis.
------
Next,
Spock;
it is due to the advent of monotheism that found morality invested in divinity. previous to that ,gods were capricious and quite immoral. yet societies did just fine. perhaps better.
This point is stupid and incorrect as I have already shown. Simply look at the ancient societies I have listed.
--------
seek help. your stunted emotional development is not my concern.
i tire of repeating myself. if anything, it is this constant whining that should be an irritant. you visibly deflate
I also tire of repeating myself to an obvious nitwit. It is irritating; if you think my assertion that you are irritating is "whining", the I assert again, again, and again that you are irritating when you purposely change an argument of mine so you can challenge.
LOL!!! Sure, my idiotic fellow sciforumer, whatever floats your boat.
once again your twisted manner of comprehending sentences is a sight to behold. where did i assert that a social instinct is the same as morality?
see here..."moral codes are then modeled on these social instincts. "
explain yourself and your conclusion
Nitwit, I look at your body of work. You asserted that morality is instinctive you fool. Now you change that assertion to morality is modeled on social instincts.
lets revisit. how does this...."This is not hardwired morality.", prove anything wrong? simply because you say so? you offer up an opinion as a statement of fact without an ounce of data to back it up? thats crackpot reasoning at its best.
Stupid fool, you purposely take a statement out of context. That statement exists within this context:
If two animals fight and the loser walks away, it is because it is vanquished. It realises its own inferiority. This is not hardwired morality. You have also not delineated your moronic assertion as to how this "altruism" between a parent and a child extrapolates to the whole group. The human aims simply to survive. Morality evolves as function to promote that survival HED
you have offered nothing to the discussion so far. pathetic!
LOL. You started challenging my assertions and so far you have done nothing. Methinks you are talking about yourself.
You have also not delineated your moronic assertion as to how this "altruism" between a parent and a child extrapolates to the whole group.
heh. you see relations where there are none.
cHECK BLOCK TWO.
altruism defines the parent/child relationship
cooperation defines the intra group relationship
WOW.
i extrapolated nothing! i suspect disingenuous argumentation.
Check BLOCK TWO.
Now this is an obvious that further debunks your moronic assertions.
which one? which ones? be specific
How about you stop taking my quotes out of context?
Here is the entire exchange:
group vs parent/child dynamics while having some common aspects are not the same. familial ties are much stronger and if choices have to be made the interests of the group will be dumped in order to favor the family. Spock
Now this is an obvious that further debunks your moronic assertions. The familial ties are much stronger in the cases where there is bonding. Between the parent(mother) and the child, this bonding is even bioligical. When it is extrapolated to the group, it becomes artificial-- this is where morality comes into being-- the ties are specified.HED
When it is extrapolated to the group, it becomes artificial-- this is where morality comes into being-- the ties are specified.
this is a useless distinction. if you assert something you have to give the reasoning behind it. what exactly is unnatural about a social grouping? how the hell would a bunch of apes specify ties? how do they form moral concepts and communicate these in order to form a cohesive and functional group? it is only after a particular stage of evolutionary development we progress from social instincts that govern relationships to the more complex forms that we term as morals
Why do you always seem to miss the obvious? Take a clan of apes and then try to move them into another clan and see how they interact. They cannot. Their ability to form a cohesive group is of course evolutionary and the grouping/bonding is biological through developed behaviour patterns. Humans term their bonding. This formulation of rules that form our social basis is what we term morality.
i hold that social instincts are varied and flexible enough to encompass entire species. (members do not usually prey on each other). deliberate moral formulations are unnecessary and usually impossible in the lesser forms of animal. await expansion on this point!
I will.
i do not think you even comprehend what this discussion is about.
lemme explain. some possible origins of morality
a> god
b> society
c>individual
d>biological
i am going with the last.
Ack. Do you see how this contradicts with your assertion that morality is modeled on social instincts? If we model morality, it is not biological.
Nitwit, of course eve's kin had to learn that it was "nice" to become members of a group that is not the family unit. It had to be able to trust that the other group(s) will uphold the survival of the group. Instinct had them in the fundamental group that is the family; a need for survival and a realization that the group-- if sharing common goals, increases the chances for survival--this was learnt.
see ape para. i see you adopt my jargon. progress. i suggest you get familiar with a typical gorilla posture. it will be appropiate.
I quote in this context so that you can better comprehend what is being said. Now address the assertion.
Are you a nitwit? Modelling morality on the survivability of the group is not the same as morality is instinctive.
holy cow. is that the meaning you derive from my statements? tedious! how many times do i have to indicate that morality is not held to be instinctive. rather it has its roots in the social instincts. explain your reasoning step by step
You asserted this:
hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems. it is the means by which we ensure our survival as a species. witness the altruism involved b/w a parent and child. the co-operation within groups/species/etc these tactics enhance survival. it is instinctive.
liar. show me what i parrot. arrange them side by side. failure to do so indicates trolling
Consider these two assertions by me:
Every society must have at its core, a certain organization and accountability for threats to this organization. Perhaps you’d like to give an example of a society without any form of organization? Even egalitarian societies have their organization in the notion of egalitarianism.
As it stands though, the conclusion you reach for an “instinctive” morality does not follow from the argument you provide. How does this “basic” morality that is “hardwired” into our “systems” ensure our survival as a species? This so called “altruism” between a parent and a child does not extend beyond the fundamental group—the family unit. There is no “hardwired” altruism towards other members of the society who are not part of said fundamental group.
Now tell me how that is not a concise and comprehensive statement about social instincts and the like.
alright. since you tried hard enough (3 times i think) i will concede that point. rest assured it will not happen again
You should concede every attempt to "debunk" my assertions made on that incorrect understanding of my original assertion. You should also concede every assertion of yours that I challenged.