Started by Awakepuddle, February 26, 2017, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 06:29:41 AMSo the wolf that dens the young does it for her own sake?What of the orca that will defend and raise a pup from a wholy different family? Ants and bees? There are so many....What would the difference be if a few weren't selfless? They do these things out of instinct (nature) and for the sake of others.Not for reward for themselves.Please show otherwise as I have studied altruism for some time.
Quote from: SGOS on March 05, 2017, 06:55:46 AMI'm not sure this has any relationship to the subjectivity/objectivity issue. Are you defending a definition of morality? Or has the discussion been diverted to a tangent?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 08:43:14 AMThey have the capacity to be predators, parasites, and altruistic.Not all life is predatory is it? If we are defined by our capacities could it not be argued justifiably that we too are beneficent?Are wolves, orca, ants, bees and other social animals wholly predatory or do they too have the capacity for altruism seen in nature?faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 04, 2017, 04:24:24 PMI see the definition[of "moralist"] from Websters assumed to be positive. I don't think moralists are positive. I think as Baruch on this; they are blowhard assholes; making the assumption that their set of morals is the the correct and only set. Morality is the same as beauty--defined differently by each and every viewer.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2017, 05:19:09 PMMorality perhaps. But the word "moralist" can have several definitions. Only the third definition: "one concerned with regulating the morals of others," generally equates to a blowhard asshole.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 08, 2017, 06:57:34 PMYeah, I see that, Solomon. All of these 'charged' words can be and are, defined differently and used differently. I think morals are different for each person. What is a moral? It is what I think it is. And it may or may not, match yours. Which is a very good reason to define these words prior to discussing them.
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 14, 2017, 10:13:28 PMAll very interesting discussions, morality is a interesting topic. Depending on which definition of objective that you use objective morality can mean different things, particularly to a theist vs a non-theist. Again, my question still stands about using the term qualitative morality rather than objective morality for those people who are discussing morality. Not sure why attacking moralists is in vogue around here. I'm not trying to define a moral yard stick, only a term to represent how each of us weighs and defines morality. Again thoughts ? Preferably in this arena but I'm learning not to hold my breath
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 08:25:29 AMI personally do not see much point in changing a word without changing its meaning.When I think of objective morality I don't exactly think of GOD or religion but what can be deemed as universally good or right.peace,Sorry for not actually attempting to answer your question sooner.faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 15, 2017, 08:54:07 AMCan you name one 'universal' good?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:08:35 AMPeace HarmonyCompassion Ever-giving Long suffering for the sake of anotherSelf sacrifice for the sake of others.