For sonship: On Childishness

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Even a snot-nosed kid with elementary background in earth science could tell you that there are lots of things on the planet that emit light naturally and of their own power, so this is a real howler of a claim on your part.
Well, you seem to be one of those snot-nosed kids in possession of an elementary background, so it shouldn't be too difficult ...[text shortened]... ith the only source of light known to man, namely, the sun.

The sun is the standard of light.[/b]

Show me even one credible reference that supports your claim of "the sun being the only naturally-occurring light available to man". Show me just one, Freaky.

The sun in not "the standard of light". The sun is just one of many natural sources of light. Even in your hypothetical, in which the sun is the only star in the universe, exactly how does it follow that what emits from the sun constitutes light simpliciter, whereas what emits from the candle constitutes light only in virtue of being similar to the sun? That's just hogwash. Do you need an elementary text to reference on this? Some thing constitutes a light source if it emits electromagnetic radiation that falls in a certain range of wavelengths that happen to be visible to the human eye. Of course any light source will share this property with other light sources, including the sun. That relationship of property-sharing is incidental with respect to what constitutes it as light. Honestly, is this so hard to understand?

Sorry, but this argument of yours blows and doesn't seem to be getting any better with your redescriptions and clarifications. Again, do you have any OTHER arguments that you think support your view that God is definitive of goodness?

Originally posted by LemonJello
There are a whole bunch of views that are much more adultlike and more reasonable than yours. No I would not mind fleshing these out somewhat for you. However, first, you seem to be conflating a couple of different things. So, before beginning, I would want to clarify those points.

You are now asking me to provide explanation for "the source of our ...[text shortened]... ot mind discussing either in the current context. Which question do you think is more pressing?

You are now asking me to provide explanation for "the source of our sense of moral obligation". That's fine and relatively straightforward; but that is just an anthropologic matter. That just concerns explanation regarding the etiology of the human moral faculty. My answers there would just have to do with our evolutionary past.

Start there then.

Understand that I know when someone is staling or trying to snow me.

If you don't know then just say you don't know.
Don't try to bluff me or stale or tell me what questions I should be asking.

Come on now Dad. Tell me about the "anthropic matter" and evolution and where the human moral sense comes from.

And I am not talking about an over sensative conscience or guilt where none really should be had, but legitimate feelings of moral obligation.

Let's have you more grown up explanation dad, without more elderly clearing of your throat.

Originally posted by sonship

You are now asking me to provide explanation for "the source of our sense of moral obligation". That's fine and relatively straightforward; but that is just an anthropologic matter. That just concerns explanation regarding the etiology of the human moral faculty. My answers there would just have to do with our evolutionary past.

Start t ...[text shortened]...

Let's have you more grown up explanation dad, without more elderly clearing of your throat.

Seriously?!? You think that is the more pressing question of the two in this context?!? If so, you're confused. That's not a pressing question with respect to one's moral view or one's moral development. It's not even relevant to one's normative view, since it is simply a question that deals with evolutionary science. It's just a question that probes why humans have a moral faculty and engage in moralized thinking; it has nothing to do with showing that such moral thoughts would have any basis in reality or point to anything actual. A much more pressing question is the meta-ethical question of what facts would serve to make such thoughts true and in virtue of what do they properly constrain and motivate us and in virtue of what are we the appropriate subjects of obligation claims, etc, etc. But, whatever, have it your way.

As I already said, the question of why we have a moral faculty is straightforward to address and just deals with evolutionary science. The moral faculty is deeply infixed in us as a species and manifests strongly cross-culturally; so, of course, it easily admits of plausible evolutionary explanation. To understand why it was selected for in our ancestors, you need to first understand the salient selection mechanisms that regulate the helping behaviors, which include kin selection, mutualism, and both direct and indirect reciprocity. If you understand the gene as the unit of selection; and if you have a basic familiarity with these selection mechanisms; it is easy to understand why broadly pro-social attitudes would be selected for in ancestors such as ours. Is that sufficient to explain why the moral faculty arose? No it is not. Having the capacity for moralized thinking is not the same as just being disposed toward pro-sociality. We would still need to explain why we have moralized thinking (as in, e.g., thinking in specifiably moral terms such as prohibitions, transgressions, obligations, desert, etc, etc) as opposed to "moral" behavior governed only by simple dispositions or affections. For that, we also need to understand the nature of moral judgments and considerations and why they are so particularly effective at regulating behavior in the particular social settings in which our ancestors found themselves. It is important here to understand the practical clout that attends moral judgments; to understand their communicative and public nature; to understand also that public motivators such as guilt and blame have irreducible moralistic dimension; etc. A very key selection mechanism to the moral faculty in this regard turns out to be indirect reciprocity, which also encompasses the subject of reputation.

If you want a very good introduction to this evolutionary explanatory program, I would recommend The Evolution of Morality by Richard Joyce. The first several chapters of that book deal with precisely this question that you think is pressing.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Show me even one credible reference that supports your claim of "the sun being the only naturally-occurring light available to man". Show me just one, Freaky.

The sun in not "the standard of light". The sun is just one of many natural sources of light. Even in your hypothetical, in which the sun is the only star in the universe, exactly how does it ...[text shortened]... ou have any OTHER arguments that you think support your view that God is definitive of goodness?

Show me even one credible reference that supports your claim of "the sun being the only naturally-occurring light available to man". Show me just one, Freaky.
Did I miss something?

Can someone please play the tape back again?
Didn't you say something along the lines of 'any snot-nosed elementary kid knowing of lots of natural light emissions?'
And now you're asking me to support the opposite?!

Why don't you put up or shut up?
Either there "are lots of things on the planet that emit light naturally and of their own power" of which you can point readily point to, or your argument is specious.

Guess which one I am betting on---- again.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Seriously?!? You think that is the more pressing question of the two in this context?!? If so, you're confused. That's not a pressing question with respect to one's moral view or one's moral development. It's not even relevant to one's normative view, since it is simply a question that deals with evolutionary science. It's just a question that probes ...[text shortened]... irst several chapters of that book deal with precisely this question that you think is pressing.

If you want a very good introduction to this evolutionary explanatory program, I would recommend The Evolution of Morality by Richard Joyce. The first several chapters of that book deal with precisely this question that you think is pressing.
Ah, so you trot out Joyce again.
Guess you are hoping:

a) no one remembers what happened last time you did so; and/or
b) no one will actually read it

Either way, it's a horse already listed in the 'also can' category.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]

Tell me about the "anthropic matter" and evolution and where the human moral sense comes from.

Seriously?!?

Why would I not be serious about it ? Nevermind, just tell me where the human moral sense comes from.

You think that is the more pressing question of the two in this context?!? If so, you're confused.

I think you should spend less time trying to convince me that I am confused and tell me where you think the human moral sense comes from.

That's not a pressing question with respect to one's moral view or one's moral development.

I think you should spend less time arguing which question/s you regard s more pressing. Just tell me where you think the human moral sense comes from.

It's not even relevant to one's normative view, since it is simply a question that deals with evolutionary science.

So far you tell me what you think it is "related to." That's nice. Where do you think the human moral sense came from?

It's just a question that probes why humans have a moral faculty and engage in moralized thinking;

Thanks, I know. Now you're about to tell me where the human moral sense comes from. Go ahead.

it has nothing to do with showing that such moral thoughts would have any basis in reality or point to anything actual.

Yes it does. But if you choose to parse things out, that is okay for now.
Where does our moral sense come from ?

A much more pressing question is the meta-ethical question of what facts would serve to make such thoughts true and in virtue of what do they properly constrain and motivate us and in virtue of what are we the appropriate subjects of obligation claims, etc, etc. But, whatever, have it your way.

So far you have told me where I am confused, what is a more pressing question, what something has to do with, etc.

I hope your next paragraph will answer where you think the human moral sense comes from.

Next Paragraph:

As I already said, the question of why we have a moral faculty is straightforward to address and just deals with evolutionary science.

Thankyou for reminding me of what you just wrote.
Now, WHERE do you think the human moral sense comes from?

The moral faculty is deeply infixed in us as a species and manifests strongly cross-culturally; so, of course, it easily admits of plausible evolutionary explanation.

I know it is somehow "infixed" in us as a species.

By saying that "it easily admits of PLAUSIBLE evolutionary explanation" (my emphasis) it suggests that you do not know the answer. You are saying you may have a "plausible" explanation though "easily" enough somehow related to evolution.

Okay, you don't know. What is your easily admitted "plausible" evolutionary explanation for the human moral sense ?

To understand why it was selected for in our ancestors, you need to first understand the salient selection mechanisms that regulate the helping behaviors, which include kin selection, mutualism, and both direct and indirect reciprocity.

So before we get to your "plausible" evolutionary explanation we have to first discuss how much sociology, natural selection mechanism, anthropology, and some other 50 cent phrases.

Okay, I am going to suggest I know something about these subjects. But the danger now is that whatever I respond you can always make the excuse that I don't know enough about these matters, ie

"You don't understand evolution"

Take a chance and tell me where the human moral sense infixed in man comes from now.

If you understand the gene as the unit of selection; and if you have a basic familiarity with these selection mechanisms; it is easy to understand why broadly pro-social attitudes would be selected for in ancestors such as ours. Is that sufficient to explain why the moral faculty arose?

I am going to assume that you do not believe that there is a segment of the human gnome which represents the human conscience or the human moral sense? Would I be correct in assuming that you do not claim the human conscience can be weighed in kilograms ?

No it is not. Having the capacity for moralized thinking is not the same as just being disposed toward pro-sociality.

I think I am still waiting to know where the moralized thinking comes from. I think I am still waiting for you to explain where the human moral sense comes from.

We would still need to explain why we have moralized thinking (as in, e.g., thinking in specifiably moral terms such as prohibitions, transgressions, obligations, desert, etc, etc) as opposed to "moral" behavior governed only by simple dispositions or affections.

Yes you would still need to explain that. From the beginning I have been waiting from you to do so.

Go!

For that, we also need to understand the nature of moral judgments and considerations and why they are so particularly effective at regulating behavior in the particular social settings in which our ancestors found themselves.

So far you keep informing me of what we would need to understand. And you DO use the word "we". Shall I assume that you are confessing YOUR need to further understand some things then ?

You submit what you think should be "plausible". But this is preceded with alerts as to several other things which I, no "we" need to understand.

This is why I wrote before that if you do not know just tell me.
I would respect that, Though your innuendos of my immaturity and your supposedly more grown up assessment of human morality, you cannot tell me.

I have a belief. I stand upon that belief. Anyone can say "we need to understand more."

We are made in the image of God. The infixing of the moral sense is in mankind because the Maker, God the Creator has that in His own being according to the Perfect Goodness that He IS.

Now you are about to tell me what else is important to understand, though I cannot detect your answer yet.

It is important here to understand the practical clout that attends moral judgments; to understand their communicative and public nature; to understand also that public motivators such as guilt and blame have irreducible moralistic dimension;

Is it a impassable barrier to understanding your opinion if "irreducible moralistic dimension" is not a phrase I understand yet?

The human moral sense in man comes from ... ?

etc. A very key selection mechanism to the moral faculty in this regard turns out to be indirect reciprocity, which also encompasses the subject of reputation.

So the need for a good reputation is related ?

Does evolution furnish man ONLY with cognitive faculties to SURVIVE ?
Or does evolution furnish man with cognitive faculties to SURVIVE and KNOW what is actually GOOD and EVIL regardless of whether every last human being agrees or not ?

Does evolution furnish man with the knowledge that not torturing babies for fun is the best way for human society to go?

Or does evolution furnish man with the knowledge not to torture babies for fun is Right, Good, and related to Truth ?

Please do not force me to ask the questions YOU think I should be asking in the order YOU think I should be asking them.

If you want a very good introduction to this evolutionary explanatory program, I would recommend The Evolution of Morality by Richard Joyce. The first several chapters of that book deal with precisely this question that you think is pressing.

That's nice. But you are the one kind of claiming that you're more grown up about this and I am childish.

Any kid can tell another kid about a good book he should read.
Give me another post please, giving attention to those last two questions of mine.

Thanks

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Show me even one credible reference that supports your claim of "the sun being the only naturally-occurring light available to man". Show me just one, Freaky.
Did I miss something?

Can someone please play the tape back again?
Didn't you say something along the lines of 'any snot-nosed elementary kid knowing of lots of natural light emissions?' ...[text shortened]... nt readily point to, or your argument is specious.

Guess which one I am betting on---- again.[/b]

Didn't you say something along the lines of 'any snot-nosed elementary kid knowing of lots of natural light emissions?'
And now you're asking me to support the opposite?!

Yes, I am asking you to support YOUR claim. After all, you're the one who claimed "the opposite". You're the one who needs to put up or shut up. Anyway, don't bother: it's an exercise in absurdist humor, since your claim is so outrageously false.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If you want a very good introduction to this evolutionary explanatory program, I would recommend The Evolution of Morality by Richard Joyce. The first several chapters of that book deal with precisely this question that you think is pressing.
Ah, so you trot out Joyce again.
Guess you are hoping:

a) no one remembers what happened last t ...[text shortened]... one will actually read it

Either way, it's a horse already listed in the 'also can' category.[/b]

Huh?

Originally posted by sonship

Tell me about the "anthropic matter" and evolution and where the human moral sense comes from.

Seriously?!?

Why would I not be serious about it ? Nevermind, just tell me where the human moral sense comes from.

[quote] You think that is the more pressing question of the two in this context?!? If so, you're conf ...[text shortened]...
Give me another post please, giving attention to those last two questions of mine.

Thanks

By saying that "it easily admits of PLAUSIBLE evolutionary explanation" (my emphasis) it suggests that you do not know the answer.

Is English not your first language? Is that the problem here?

I am going to assume that you do not believe that there is a segment of the human gnome which represents the human conscience or the human moral sense? Would I be correct in assuming that you do not claim the human conscience can be weighed in kilograms ?

The "human gnome"????

Oh my god, what have I gotten myself into?

Give me another post please, giving attention to those last two questions of mine.

Here are the questions of yours:

Does evolution furnish man with the knowledge that not torturing babies for fun is the best way for human society to go?

Or does evolution furnish man with the knowledge not to torture babies for fun is Right, Good, and related to Truth ?

You didn't ask me about moral knowledge. You asked me about the human moral sense. I even asked you simple questions to clarify that this was your aim. Again, sensing is not factive: one can be deceived in what he senses to be true. So, figure out what exactly you want to ask, figure out what is actually soooooooo pressing. Are you asking me merely for a deflationary account of morality that explains where moral sense comes from but provides no meta-ethical accounting for whether or not such sensing picks out something actual or is justified? Or are you asking me for something more? Better get your house in order first, sonship.

Originally posted by LemonJello

By saying that "it easily admits of PLAUSIBLE evolutionary explanation" (my emphasis) it suggests that you do not know the answer.

Is English not your first language? Is that the problem here?

[quote]I am going to assume that you do not believe that there is a segment of the human gnome which represents the human conscience or the hu ...[text shortened]... ified? Or are you asking me for something more? Better get your house in order first, sonship.

Is English not your first language? Is that the problem here?

That's irrelevant.
A wisecrack.

What do you have in this post ?

sonship:
I am going to assume that you do not believe that there is a segment of the human gnome which represents the human conscience or the human moral sense? Would I be correct in assuming that you do not claim the human conscience can be weighed in kilograms ?

JL:
The "human gnome"????

Very good. You got me in a misspelling. You got me on a typo.
Impressive. The word genome is what was meant.

You can always [sic] it.
What was your answer ?

Oh my god, what have I gotten myself into?

Now I am really blown away.
What you have got yourself into is trying to bluff someone who can see through your tissue of intellectual pretensions.

But I do seriously look for something from you yet.
That is on the matter of human moral sense.
You told me its infixed. Okay.
You told me about social reciprocity.
You told me the answer easily falls under some plausible evolutionary explanation.

Do the cognitive faculties furnish us with only survival mechanisms ?
Or do they have anything to inform us about what is right in a transcendent and universal sense ?

IE "It is simply wrong that I steal my neighbor's wife out of jealousy."

As opposed to merely

"The species will do better if one does not steal his neighbor's wife."

What do you think?

sonship:
Give me another post please, giving attention to those last two questions of mine.

LJ:
Here are the questions of yours:

Does evolution furnish man with the knowledge that not torturing babies for fun is the best way for human society to go?

Or does evolution furnish man with the knowledge not to torture babies for fun is Right, Good, and related to Truth ?

Okay. What do you think?

You didn't ask me about moral knowledge.

I didn't see myself getting a real reply so I took re-asked what I want to know about your superior, adult, more mature explanation of the human morality question.

Still given you a benefit of a doubt.

What else ?

You asked me about the human moral sense. I even asked you simple questions to clarify that this was your aim. Again, sensing is not factive: one can be deceived in what he senses to be true.

Of course one can be deceived about what he thinks he senses.
One can wake up in the middle of the night thinking he sensed someone being in the bedroom when someone wasn't.

Are you using this as an explanation that there is no valid human sensing of the rightness or wrongness of a moral issue?

"But we can be deceived about our SENSES."

So are you broadly saying the moral sense of the human conscience and moral thinking are by nature always self deceptive ?

That still doesn't tell me where the sense came from.
And I know that you do not believe nor live like you believe you are always self deceived about what you know to be the right way or the wrong way someone treats you.

If I met you in an alley and held you up for your wallet, I know you would not think you were self deceived to feel you have been WRONGED.

What can you tell me besides the "self deceiving" of some human senses ?

So, figure out what exactly you want to ask, figure out what is actually soooooooo pressing.

Maybe you need to figure out what you want to evade exactly, and just tell me not to ask that.

Pressing, Urgent, Critical ? Whatever.
Now I am looking for ANY kind of reasonable explanation rather than more whining about process.

Are you asking me merely for a deflationary account of morality that explains where moral sense comes from but provides no meta-ethical accounting for whether or not such sensing picks out something actual or is justified? Or are you asking me for something more? Better get your house in order first, sonship.

You don't have anything.
Stop bluffing and double checking with whatever text you might be supplying yourself with catch phrases and vocabulary words.

Hey, "Father Knows Best" you ain't.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Didn't you say something along the lines of 'any snot-nosed elementary kid knowing of lots of natural light emissions?'
And now you're asking me to support the opposite?!

Yes, I am asking you to support YOUR claim. After all, you're the one who claimed "the opposite". You're the one who needs to put up or shut up. Anyway, don't bother: it's an exercise in absurdist humor, since your claim is so outrageously false.

The "claim" was nothing more than a thought experiment, which you quickly derailed into a discussion which had nothing to do with the original intent.

You furthered the derailment by claiming an abundance of naturally-occurring sources for light found right here on the planet.
You upped the ante even more, declaring that even a snot-nosed elementary kid could list more than a few of them.

Now here is where the 'put up or shut up' part comes in.
Forget the first distraction, let's narrow the discussion to your solitary claim of naturally-occurring sources for light found right here on the planet.

Name them.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh?

One word: moral nihilst.

Darn it.
That was two, huh.

Originally posted by sonship

Is English not your first language? Is that the problem here?

That's irrelevant.
A wisecrack.

What do you have in this post ?

[quote]
sonship:
I am going to assume that you do not believe that there is a segment of the human gnome which represents the human conscience or the human moral sense? Would I be correc ...[text shortened]... ying yourself with catch phrases and vocabulary words.

Hey, "Father Knows Best" you ain't.

You can always [sic] it.
What was your answer ?

My answer is that I do not understand the first question; and yes to the second question.

Do the cognitive faculties furnish us with only survival mechanisms ?
Or do they have anything to inform us about what is right in a transcendent and universal sense ?

The first question is notionally confused. Our cognitive faculties furnish us with information processing of the world around us, with beliefs and similar mental states, with reasoning, etc, and this includes the deliverances of the moral faculty. I said nothing about "survival mechanisms". I said something about selection mechanisms, as it regards natural selection processes. The claim is not that our cognitive faculties provide us with survival mechanisms (lord knows where you get this stuff). The claim is that our cognitive faculties, which include the moral sense at issue, are the product of the type of selection mechanisms that I listed at work on our ancestors. (After all, that's what you asked me, remember? You asked me about the descriptively specifiable origin of our moral sense. ) Do you even understand the claim here?

The following regards the second question. Again, our cognitive faculties provide us with beliefs among other things. Yes, of course, a good many of these are true, although our cognitive faculties are almost certainly not perfect in this regard. "I ought not eat my offspring" is a moral belief my faculties have provided me, and it surely seems true. "I ought not chuck my offspring into a wood chipper." There's another. We could go on and on. I do not know what you mean by "transcendent and universal". But, at any rate, I think these beliefs I mentioned are true because they report objective facts.

IE "It is simply wrong that I steal my neighbor's wife out of jealousy."

As opposed to merely

"The species will do better if one does not steal his neighbor's wife."

What do you think?

"The species" is not the principal unit of selection. Neither is the individual for that matter. At any rate, even if the gene is the principal unit of selection; and even if the selection thereof is the predominant etiological factor in the emergence of our cognitive faculties; it does not follow that the beliefs furnished to us by these faculties should take the gene as their object. That you would even hint otherwise suggests to me either (1) you do not have a good understanding of the selection mechanisms responsible for regulating the helping behaviors in our species or (2) you're virtually clueless on the content of moral beliefs in humans. But (2) would be strange, for I presume you have of course introspected on your own moral beliefs. Do any of them resemble "The species will do better if one does not steal his neighbor's wife"? Have you ever asked any persons around you what their moral beliefs are? Have they reported anything that resembles this? Of course not. So, it's likely (1) rather than (2). Our cognitive faculties furnish us with moral beliefs that more closely resemble the former rather than the latter, with respect to those you listed. Of course, you knew that already. Again, whether or not these beliefs pick out truth depends on whether or not there are associated facts, which is a separate issue.

So are you broadly saying the moral sense of the human conscience and moral thinking are by nature always self deceptive ?

Of course not. Again, lord knows where you get this stuff.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The "claim" was nothing more than a thought experiment, which you quickly derailed into a discussion which had nothing to do with the original intent.

You furthered the derailment by claiming an abundance of naturally-occurring sources for light found right here on the planet.
You upped the ante even more, declaring that even a snot-nosed elementary ki ...[text shortened]... im of naturally-occurring sources for light found right here on the planet.

[b]Name them.[/b]

No one is this impossibly ignorant, so give over. If you honestly cannot come up with any natural sources of light on the planet, why not try wading through the terrestrial sources listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_light_sources

As I have already said, your light argument is one of the most asinine I have seen in a long time on this forum. The question about whether or not there are terrestrial sources of natural light exposes some alarming ignorance on your part; but it is, at the end of the day, totally irrelevant anyway. The point is, even if I granted you that the sun is the only natural source of light, it still would not follow that earthly sources of light only qualify as light because ipso facto they stand in a relationship of property-sharing with the sun. As has been explained to you multiple times, that is simply not how scientific description regarding light works.

Again, if you have ANY OTHER arguments, then let's hear them. Or do you have anything broadly relevant to the thread topic? If not, you'll have to excuse me if I ignore you until such time as you do.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One word: moral nihilst.

Darn it.
That was two, huh.

Yep, two words…only two words, and you still misspelled one of them.

Regardless, alas, it would be awesome if you could actually follow a discussion for once. Joyce's meta-ethical view is completely irrelevant to the work that I recommended to sonship, which is a work that deals with the descriptively specifiable origin of the human moral faculty. I'm sure you'll continue to selectively ignore this point.