Morality and Belief in God

[blarg]

In any sense of the word good you like. Are these behaviors good for the species? Are my cats as a species better off than the Dodo?

there alive hopefully any way that's as good as you make it

 

[the_recruit]

So, you acknowledge that behavior conducive to propagation is good for the continuance of the species. Would you acknowledge that the continuance of the species is itself good? (I think you must; otherwise it will be hard to justify that behavior conducing to continuance is good.)

The question has no sense (given the meaning of good I just described). We need to track very carefully our meanings here. Suppose that

GOOD1 = the sense of the word which expresses normative content (what ought to be).

GOOD2 = the sense of the word which expresses only descriptive content (what is). Means something like "realizes" or "brings about".

I agreed with the following statement:

1) "Behaviors that tend to propagate genes are "GOOD2" for the continuation of the species."

Which is semantically equivalent to:

2) "Behaviors that tend to propagate genes "bring about" the continuation of the species."

Now you're asking whether I agree with the following statement:

3) "The continuation of the species is good."

If by "g-o-o-d" here you mean GOOD1 then I disagree with the statement (or rather disagree that 1 implies 3). If by "g-o-o-d" you mean GOOD2 then the statement makes no sense ("The continuation of the species 'brings about'." Brings about what?)

 

[Angel]

The question has no sense (given the meaning of good I just described). We need to track very carefully our meanings here. Suppose that

GOOD1 = the sense of the word which expresses normative content (what ought to be).

GOOD2 = the sense of the word which expresses only descriptive content (what is). Means something like "realizes" or "brings about".

I agreed with the following statement:

1) "Behaviors that tend to propagate genes are "GOOD2" for the continuation of the species."

Which is semantically equivalent to:

2) "Behaviors that tend to propagate genes "bring about" the continuation of the species."

Now you're asking whether I agree with the following statement:

3) "The continuation of the species is good."

If by "g-o-o-d" here you mean GOOD1 then I disagree with the statement (or rather disagree that 1 implies 3). If by "g-o-o-d" you mean GOOD2 then the statement makes no sense ("The continuation of the species 'brings about'." Brings about what?)

The word "good" expresses a value, a positive value; the opposite value, the negative value, is expressed by the word "bad."
Your GOOD2 misses this essential meaning of "good" -- in order to maintain your hidden thesis about morality, it seems to me -- and embraces a strictly instrumental meaning, by which the good-bad distinction, the essential meaning of these valorisations, is lost.

My questions, therefore, have been and still are:

1. Is behavior that conduces to the survival and continuance of life of positive value?
2. Is the continuance of life of positive value?

And NOT your question, the tautological nature of which is pretty obvious:

1. Does behavior that conduces to the survival and continuance of life conduce to the survival and continuance of life?

 

[Atheist 2020]

My questions, therefore, have been and still are:

1. Is behavior that conduces to the survival and continuance of life of positive value?
2. Is the continuance of life of positive value?

Personal life, it depends on the security of the person that gives a positive value or a negative value. Continuance of life, if you are healthy, if you have a stable income, if you have a above average education -- you have a more stable lifestyle going into death. Continuance of life, if you have a negative health, if you have a unstable income, if you have a below average income -- you have a very unstable lifestyle.

 

[Angel]

there alive hopefully any way that's as good as you make it

I made you an offer you can't refuse at #346. You can ignore it, of course, and compound your offense. That's up to you.

 

[Quag]

Good/bad are subjective terms

 

[devildavid]

The word "good" expresses a value, a positive value; the opposite value, the negative value, is expressed by the word "bad."
Your GOOD2 misses this essential meaning of "good" -- in order to maintain your hidden thesis about morality, it seems to me -- and embraces a strictly instrumental meaning, by which the good-bad distinction, the essential meaning of these valorisations, is lost.

My questions, therefore, have been and still are:

1. Is behavior that conduces to the survival and continuance of life of positive value?
2. Is the continuance of life of positive value?

And NOT your question, the tautological nature of which is pretty obvious:

1. Does behavior that conduces to the survival and continuance of life conduce to the survival and continuance of life?

You don't really understand what is at play in the survival of the species. Individual choices are not critical to it. It is not something that we exercise any control over; rather it controls our fate as a species. So there are no good or bad individual choices at all. They are statistically insignificant.

 

[devildavid]

It could be argued that suicide weeds out those who potentially could contribute to a weak strain that hurts the survival of the species. But it still is probably statistically insignificant either way.

 

[Angel]

You don't really understand what is at play in the survival of the species. Individual choices are not critical to it. It is not something that we exercise any control over; rather it controls our fate as a species. So there are no good or bad individual choices at all. They are statistically insignificant.

We haven't gotten around to choice yet, devildavid.

 

[Angel]

Good/bad are subjective terms

That ain't necessarily so, Q. Do you not recognize the objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch?

 

[Quag]

That ain't necessarily so, Q. Do you not recognize the objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch?

There is no objectively good or bad watch.
If you define a watch running on time as a good watch then one which does so is good but your definition of a watch running on time is just your subjective opinion. It isn't objectively good
If someone likes a watch to always be slow then for them a watch that runs slow is a good watch for someone who wants it to be the exact time it is a bad watch. In neither case is it objectively good or bad.

Good/bad are subjective terms

 

[Angel]

There is no objectively good or bad watch.
If you define a watch running on time as a good watch then one which does so is good but your definition of a watch running on time is just your subjective opinion. It isn't objectively good
If someone likes a watch to always be slow then for them a watch that runs slow is a good watch for someone who wants it to be the exact time it is a bad watch. In neither case is it objectively good or bad.

Good/bad are subjective terms

Sorry, Quag. There is an objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch -- one works and the other does not work, whatever you or anyone else thinks or prefers.

 

[Quag]

Sorry, Quag. There is an objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch -- one works and the other does not work, whatever you or anyone else thinks or prefers.

Yes there is an objective difference between a watch that works or doesn't but whether that is good or bad is a subjective opinion
Good/bad are subjective terms

 

[AGENT J]

Sorry, Quag. There is an objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch -- one works and the other does not work, whatever you or anyone else thinks or prefers.

nope still subjective opinion lol

you are basing it off your subjective criteria and falsely claiming it to be objective and that i FACTUALLY wrong... if you feel it has to work or have a second hand or has to be blue etc etc all your subjective opinion

 

[Angel]

Yes there is an objective difference between a watch that works or doesn't but whether that is good or bad is a subjective opinion
Good/bad are subjective terms

No, it's what a good watch is, i.e., a watch that works; and it's what a bad watch is, i.e., a watch that doesn't work. Good and bad are terms that reflect objective reality. Your subjectivity may or may not recognize this difference, but the difference lies in physical reality, not in your subjectivity.

 

[AGENT J]

No, it's what a good watch is, i.e., a watch that works; and it's what a bad watch is, i.e., a watch that doesn't work. Good and bad are terms that reflect objective reality. Your subjectivity may or may not recognize this difference, but the difference lies in physical reality, not in your subjectivity.

nope again just your opinion based on your subjective feelings.
no matter how many times you repeat your lie it will never be true

 

[devildavid]

We haven't gotten around to choice yet, devildavid.

Choice is not moral. It is simply choice. And how free it is is a matter of debate. Making choices is not inherently a moral act. Survival is not right or wrong, it just is.

 

[devildavid]

No, it's what a good watch is, i.e., a watch that works; and it's what a bad watch is, i.e., a watch that doesn't work. Good and bad are terms that reflect objective reality. Your subjectivity may or may not recognize this difference, but the difference lies in physical reality, not in your subjectivity.

Good and bad have various meanings. The meanings depend on the context.

 

[Angel]

Choice is not moral. It is simply choice. And how free it is is a matter of debate. Making choices is not inherently a moral act. Survival is not right or wrong, it just is.

As I said, you're getting ahead of yourself. As a result you're all over the map. What's being mooted at the moment is the meaning of "good" as an expression of value in the context of life on earth generally.

 

[Quag]

No, it's what a good watch is, i.e., a watch that works; and it's what a bad watch is, i.e., a watch that doesn't work. Good and bad are terms that reflect objective reality. Your subjectivity may or may not recognize this difference, but the difference lies in physical reality, not in your subjectivity.

You are confusing terms here equating working with good and not working with bad, that's just your subjective opinion.
You cannot show a working watch to be objectively good you can only claim that in your subjective opinion it is good

 

[Angel]

You are confusing terms here equating working with good and not working with bad, that's just your subjective opinion.
You cannot show a working watch to be objectively good you can only claim that in your subjective opinion it is good

Don't be silly, Quag. The good watch and the bad watch are just what these watches are qua watches.
According to your idiosyncratic view, whether a watch works or doesn't work is a matter of thought. This is absurd.

 

[Quag]

Don't be silly, Quag. The good watch and the bad watch are just what these watches are qua watches.
According to your idiosyncratic view, whether a watch works or doesn't work is a matter of thought. This is absurd.

Dont be absurd throwing up ridiculous strawmen
If a watch works it works if it doesn't it doesn't. I have ne4ver claimed anything like what you said

Yes there is an objective difference between a watch that works or doesn't but whether that is good or bad is a subjective opinion

All you have done is claimed that a working watch is objectively good and a non working watch objectively bad.
That's is just your subjective opinion equating working with good and non working with bad

Good/bad are subjective terms.

 

[the_recruit]

The word "good" expresses a value, a positive value; the opposite value, the negative value, is expressed by the word "bad."
Your GOOD2 misses this essential meaning of "good" -- in order to maintain your hidden thesis about morality, it seems to me -- and embraces a strictly instrumental meaning, by which the good-bad distinction, the essential meaning of these valorisations, is lost.

My questions, therefore, have been and still are:

1. Is behavior that conduces to the survival and continuance of life of positive value?
2. Is the continuance of life of positive value?

And NOT your question, the tautological nature of which is pretty obvious:

1. Does behavior that conduces to the survival and continuance of life conduce to the survival and continuance of life?

But then we're back to where we started - that certain behaviors may lead to the continuation of a species is purely an empirical matter. Which offspring get eaten or die and which offspring survive to reproduce is a consequence of biology and physics. Pointing this out doesn't commit anyone to supposing that this is good, that this is what ought to happen.

And I'm not just being pedantic here btw. We can imagine all kinds of instances where an organism engages in behavior which may serve to propagate its genes but which is actually immoral (rape for instance).

 

[Angel]

Dont be absurd throwing up ridiculous strawmen
If a watch works it works if it doesn't it doesn't. I have ne4ver claimed anything like what you said



All you have done is claimed that a working watch is objectively good and a non working watch objectively bad.
That's is just your subjective opinion equating working with good and non working with bad

Good/bad are subjective terms.

You're stuck in an idee fixe here, Quag. I've pointed out the absurdity of your claim. If in your world there is no objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch, then in your world a watch that works is indistinguishable from a watch that doesn't work. This is the consequence of your claim that good watch/bad watch distinction is purely a subjective distinction. This is not a straw man. This is what follows from your obsessive claim.

 

[AGENT J]

Don't be silly, Quag. The good watch and the bad watch are just what these watches are qua watches.
According to your idiosyncratic view, whether a watch works or doesn't work is a matter of thought. This is absurd.

why do you post lies like this, what you claimed was said was NEVER said
you are trying to push you subjective feelings as fact but they are failing left and right. They have no honest and logical merit to them...