CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There are no morals. Morality it subjective and is only existent in personal neurology. For example, I have no moral beliefs. Your second question; there is no "good foundation", generally speaking, but you can set one for yourself. For example, Christians follow biblical morals. Atheist follow their own morals. I follow zero morals.
"There are no Morals" does not coincide with "Morality is subjective".
EDIT: You didn't really answer the first question. Regardless of the subjectivity of morality, why does it exist?
From my original response: If morality only exists within personal neurology, why does it persist over time and have some consistency outside of the subjective experience? Can groups have emergent properties?
"There are no morals" is not supposed to coincide with "morality is subjective" I simply answered one question then the other. I am a realist, so things that humans 'want' to believe or induce for comfort would not fit with me. Morality is what those "things" consist of. Morals are persistent because of indoctrination (almost like Christianity.) You obviously do not know what subjective means because different countries contain different morals which prove subjectivity. For example, some countries believe that you should be killed for adultery while others would say that is wrong (subjectivity.) And my notion of "non existent morals" stems from the inconsistency of what people consider morality, and that inconsistency is from the teachings. Which shows that morality has to be taught for it to exist (sort of like god) which means morality is inside of our heads from what was told to us as children.
You started with "there are no morals" and then went on to explain them to me. I know what subjectivity means, and it isn't non-existent. After a bit of repetition, and equating "inconsistent with "non-existent" you seem to come around to the question of why they exist. "They exist because people continue to teach them" is a reason at least, which you left out in your first post. Even this reason misses something though. Morals exist because people teach them, but people teach them because they are morals. So your answer doesn't really get at the root cause for why they exist.
On a less interesting point: I am a realist, so things that humans 'want' to believe or induce for comfort would not fit with me
"Nihilist=realist", a bit subjective but I think I got it. People want things and believe things all the time. These very real actions bring about very real results. People see shrinks to help them gain a different perspective (subjective belief), and this helps their physical health and well-being. People wish for a house, subjectively think about what it should be like, and then make a house.
Something existing in the realm of the mind does not mean that it doesn't exist.
"Morals exist because people teach them, but people teach them because they are morals." Please be more cogent. And I'm sure the ideology of morals was created to prevent chaos. Same thing with the constitution.
They "exist" for comfort just like a God. And I am saying that morals do not in actuality exist. Just like time, the concept of time is existent yes, but actual time is not.
The concept of something being right or wrong exist, which that in itself subjective, but a absolute/definite right or wrong (in terms of behavior) is non-existent (I do not know if you are intellectually capable of understanding the analogous I am looking at the big picture.)
Look at what humans call animals. There are no morals amongst them and that is because they do no not teach their offspring that ideology. And if you counter this with an example, I would say that it was instinctual.
"Something existing in the realm of the mind does not mean that it doesn't exist"
Obviously if you can use exist to describe it then it does exist. But only in concept. The mind.
Gravity exist. Math is disputable because that also is a concept. Atmospheres exist. Morals and time do not exist.
Look at what humans call animals Humans count. if you counter this with an example, I would say that it was instinctual.
Dogs lifting their leg to piss is a learned behavior. It's a ritual. Many people hold morals based around ritual. I expect there are a number of things that animals as intelligent as dogs actually learn.
people teach them, but people teach them because they are morals
People feel compelled to pass them on. This is the internal incentive mechanism that is unique to morals.
the concept of time is existent yes, but actual time is not.
Wow, why don't you just stop me from posting this debate then?
I do not know if you are intellectually capable of understanding the analogous I am looking at the big picture.
Gosh HarvardGrad, I hope I am intellectually capable of understanding the analogous you are looking at the big picture...Pomposity.
Concepts are real in that they cause things that undeniably exist. Time, by the way, is probably one of the key ingredients in gravity.
"Look at what humans call animals. Humans count" I know but I stated "humans call" because humans do not acknowledge themselves as animals.
"Dogs lifting their leg to piss is a learned behavior"
No, it is instinctual. My dog had no contact with any other dogs from the time he opened his eyes. Yet he naturally lifted his leg when he needed to pee. Same goes with marking his
territory.
"People feel compelled to pass them on. This is the internal incentive mechanism that is unique to morals."
There is a sequential psychological answer for that (almost like the idea of certain days having relevancy e.g. birthdays)
"Wow, why don't you just stop me from posting this debate then?" Elaborate.
Also I did not mean to offend, there are intellectual comprehension 'inabilities' or 'limitations'
to where some can not simply think that 'deep'. I try to limit the complexity of my syntax to which a average intelligent person could understand. But I can not simplify an intellectual complexity. So again, my apologies if I gave offence.
There is no physical interaction between the concept of time and physical phenomenon.
As a consequence we cannot perceive physically our concept of time.
As a consequence again we are unable to describe the alleged entity time.
Time fails both aspects of the double condition that could establish it physically.
So time does not exist in reality.
Choose a word in the English language that implies time. Simultaneously and instantaneously must occur elsewhere than in time as both involve no time.
Also, gravity is composed of physics and mathematics.
I see your anecdotal evidence: My sisters dog never lifted his leg until he went to the dog park and now he only does around other dogs…And raise you a professional quote from psychologytoday.com:
“Skill development, especially in mammals, often requires a great deal of practice. Young mammals come into the world highly motivated to practice the skills they need to survive, but in some cases they are unable, by themselves, to create the conditions necessary for practice. In these cases, teaching may occur simply by providing those conditions. Perhaps the best examples are found in cases of carnivores learning to hunt.”
There is a sequential psychological answer for that
Regardless of a sequential psychological answer morals provide an internal incentive structure, sometimes expressed as a conscience, and this is unique to morality. It also is the reason people pass it on. They are compelled to do so, almost like an instinct.
To elaborate on my statement about stopping me from creating this debate, you can’t. You physically actually can’t. The reason is that it happened earlier in time. Since time is real, it has a nature. Part of that nature is that you can’t go to an earlier position. Time is absolutely as real as space, which it is inseparable from. And when space/time is interrupted by mass you have Gravity.
As a consequence we cannot perceive physically our concept of time.
You can if you have any continuity of thought.
As a consequence again we are unable to describe the alleged entity time.
We haven’t yet successfully described matter.
Choose a word in the English language that implies time. Simultaneously and instantaneously must occur elsewhere than in time as both involve no time.
How about before and after.
Side Note: If you bracket words with or this one Astrix or two Astrix , it will italicize or bolden respectively.
A dog lifting its leg to pee is not a skill nor is it necessary for survival. It is just a way of peeing. And to what conclusion are we going to draw, because both of our examples entail completely different conclusions. Although my evidence goes to show that such behavior is not learned. Because my dog did not learn it. I believe male dogs do that for the convenience in their trajectory of their pee for marking a spot for their territory.
Your continuity to think is not timed it is a process. Just like aging is not timed it is a biological process. Orbiting of the planets; cosmological process.
Before and after both does not involve nor imply time it is rather a timeframe (why did you even think of that?) By definition that would be false because time is continuous, before and after suggest a vicinity of time, not time itself.
We also have no idea of what gravitation and light rays are(in reality) we know that these ideas coincide to real things. Unlike time. I can feel light rays bur, I can jump on earth and even higher on the moon.
perception,description, and empirical evidence are needed to say something exists in reality. Time cannot described empirically.
P.S I do not think you seem to know exactly what I mean of non-existing time. Or the context that I am using time in.
Your continuity to think is not timed it is a process
There is not concept of process without the concept of time. In fact there is no concept of distance/space without the concept of time.
We also have no idea of what gravitation and light rays are(in reality) we know that these ideas coincide to real things. Unlike time.
Time IS space. Rather it is sequence, movement. Just as space has "this" as opposed to "that", time has "now" as opposed to "then". It is coincides with real things, such as any given "process".
Before and after both does not involve nor imply time it is rather a timeframe
A what frame?
If I don't know what you mean by the non-existence of time, please enlighten me. Because from where I stand your absent morality traces back to your skewed metaphysics / perception of reality. (To bring it back on track a bit)
Time is not in the definition of process and vice versa. You are interpreting entirely too much.
How does time coincide with real things and not conceived with real things?
By you saying "a what frame" lets me know that you are not intellectually capable to understand what I mean by time. Which then even further lets me know you also did not understand what I meant about morals.
Time is only conceived in the mind and cannot be expressed physically.
You can express the idea of morality through actions but that does not entail its existence.
I can obtain religious relics and a commence in religious practice, but that does not entail 'actual' religion(by actual I mean religious practices that have true(actual) meaning)
By your logic; because humans conceive morals and practice it, and indoctrinate it(naturally as you say), that entails its 'actual' existence. Then one might say the same about religion. Some theologians actually have said the same about religion. Because we commence on practice of it and we conceive it, then it must entail a God exist no matter which religion is true. For as how else could a religion come to be.
Matter is not in the definition of gravity even though it is required for gravity. Jesus, ingredient isn't in the definition of food. You don't need to have a language link for something to be required for the other to exist.
To deny the self evident, and then fail to convince another of this denial, does not mean your target is lacking intelligence. To fail to acknowledge the existence of anything that isn't tangible doesn't imply higher cognition, but lower. Furthermore, regurgitating some lousy metaphysics that you picked up from someone else doesn't raise the bar either. Now let me explain the objective existence of time.
Length, width, height, and space/time are the 4 dimensions that compose this objective reality. Space and Time cannot be separated. There is not one without the other. It may be hard to grasp because it is axiomatic. It is a fundamental aspect of reality from which other aspects are defined.
Since you require tangibility for understanding, consider that Einsteins theory shows that space/time is responsible for Gravity.
Moving forward shall we try to avoid assuming the disagreeing party is less intelligent than you? I doubt you will meet this request since your screen name is essentially argumentum ab auctoritate.
Because we recognize (imperfectly) harmful patterns of behavior and we aim not to perpetuate them.
What is a good foundation for Morality?
Well the foundation for morality is the same foundation for how we define good itself. Personally I think that whether or not something is likely to strengthen and/or preserve health is the best way to distinguish between moral and immoral activities.
Seems there are a lot of different views on this. Atheists and theists. Damning Moralizers and Nihilists. Where do you stand? Why?
Our morals are based on what we most value, this I view as universally true. I tend to favor the traditional understanding of morality in that since we are so often mistaken about future consequences, the morality of an action is determined more by our intentions and motivations than likely or actual outcomes.
As an interesting aside, how should morality relate to law?
Laws are instituted according to the predominant moral reasoning of the society they are enacted in. In most cases (here in the US anyway) legal culpability or criminality cannot be established without proving ill-intent.
Morals are rules to help people interact properly with other people. These rules help remind people how to behave. Society thrives on people being able to interact with each other. That is what morals provide.
A good foundation for morality is the idea that you shouldn't be a jerk to other people.
I mostly agree. If "don't be a jerk" is the foundation, it leaves open quite a few moral questions. Cleanliness and pedophilia are a few examples of moral issues that theoretically fall outside of the harm principle.
Morality is the code of conduct required by rational creatures for living well and interacting. The only reasonable foundation for human morality is the human life. That is to say that principles which support, promote, uphold, and enhance the fact and the quality of life should be the primary consideration of moral particulars.
Morality is not something that we just make up. It is an evolved trait meant for survival and enhancement. Though humans may be the only creatures who make our morality explicit, rudimentary moral conduct can be observed in other, more or less intelligent, social creatures.
Since humans make morality explicit, it makes sense to rank morality in accordance with their relative importance to a human life. Moral codes concerning mortal conflict would be among the most important aspects of morality (and more universal), while moral codes concerning etiquette would be among the least important (and more subjective).
Monkeys will express outrage at confrontation, morality based on the harm principle.(Anecdotally,I knew a monkey that would violently protect whomever his adopted companion was at a given time). A dog pack's hierarchy is moralistic. It is based initially on the idea of might makes right. After dominance is established, dogs show various forms of "courtesies" to those above them in the pack order. This is a morality based on authority and loyalty. Elephants ritualistically bury their dead. This is a morality based on the sanctity of life (of ones own kind), which can easily be connected to evolution as a preserving adaptation.
In a wolf pack, dominance is established based off of fear not loyalty. Almost like a lion pride. Females in the pride let the male eat first even though they hunted for the meal. This is because the male protects the pride from other males that would potentially harm there young (when another male takes over a pride he usually kills off the cubs to create new ones.) Not because they thinks it is 'right' to do so. Animals do not distinguish right or wrong, they rather distinguish between life and death for them or their young(also if is a pride, pack, or colony.)
Three lions(teen) came across cubs from a different pack of lions. They then decided to have fun so they were extremely rough while playing with the cubs (e.g. tossing them sitting and suffocating them, cutting them) and eventually killed them from their excessive roughness. This was highly unnecessary(one might say wrong) and those young lions know not to do that to their younger siblings ONLY because there is normally an older female watching the cubs. And if an older lion gets too rough, then they would intervene, therefore showing the young lion not to do that. Not because it is wrong, but because those cubs will be needed for the survival of the pack, which implies instinct.
Elephants (and plenty of other species) mourning does not have anything to do with something being right or wrong, but rather bad or good. Morality is not defined by what is bad or good. Another example would be mammalian species mourning when they have lost their cubs. They do not feel as thought something is wrong but they rather have a sense of failure. No vendetta. Just like when another male lion takes over a pride and kills the cubs, the females allow it because that is the natural order of things. They don't feel as thought it is wrong that the male is doing this because they instinctually know why. Basically what ever it takes to survive then do.
dominance is established based off of fear not loyalty
Many morals spring from fear, often times this includes loyalty.
I'm not arguing that animals have moral codes. As I said earlier, they have the evolutionary beginnings of what becomes morality. Furthermore, each animal is different and so their nature will be particular to their species and not to ours. This isn't subjective morality, they don't have morality. They have the rudimentary beginnings which aren't subject to human moralizing since our nature is different.
Look at ancient moral codes and you'll find they commonly had a lot to do with food. This was fused into various religious traditions. It doesn't make any one "feel better" that they can't eat lobster or pork, it was simply necessary once. Today some people still hold it as "wrong". It used to be bad, thus it was codified into morality.
Some moral issues are more rational than others, hence the subjective nature of morality. But as a person moves through time, each event having multiple potential outcomes, there is one most rational course. This is an objective morality.
Morals are an evolutionary (by)product that regulate personal and interpersonal behavioral conduct. Morality exists either because it was a primary advantage over other alternatives at the time evolution selected it, or else as a secondary consequence of other attributes selected for by evolution (e.g. the capacity for self-awareness, the development of complex language, etc.).
What is a good foundation for morality?
There is no such thing; all morality is subjectively determined and applied. Moralities derive from basic sets of value assumptions (none of which exist objectively), lending morality an inherently questionable foundation.
Where do you stand? Why?
I am a nihilist. I reject the value of morality, and I dispute its asserted utility as well. I hold these views because no one has presented any objective basis to believe otherwise; suspension of belief is my default.
How should morality relate to law?
Ideally, it should no relate to law at all. Morality is a subjective projection of our personal emotions, and is frequently self-contradictory and contrary to rationale, objective consideration.
