The Existence of Objective Morality: A Debate - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14931886
ingliz wrote:The human sex ratio at birth is non-Fisherian.

It's not far off. Also with ultra-sound and legal abortion, sex selection (female infanticide) can occur before birth. The male bias to the sex ratio is at least partially down to sex selection.

Image

According to the graph above the most distorted ratio is in China (infamous for aggressive sex selection) and India also known for female infanticide. But just as interesting to note is that in sub-saharan africa the ratio is virtually 1:1. This part of the world has least access to modern medical equipment like ultrasound. So sex selection, if it happens at all, usually occurs after birth not before. The natural ratio is probably something like 1.01 to 1. With that 0.01 probably being down to females not being quite as survivable in the womb even without active infanticide.

1:1 is a reasonable approximation regardless.
#14931893
There is zero cross societies agreement on what is murder and what is property. Check out Palestine / Israel. Actually never mind the middle East check out any conflict in history. Virtually any war in complex state societies, is justified as morally right by both sides.

I'm constantly incredulous to the stupidity of Libertarians. There is no Non aggression principle, there is only non aggression marketing. When humans evolved on Earth, there was no property. There is no way, no mechanism for anyone to acquire property from an absolute morality perspective, no way at all. Property is and will always remain a relative social construct.

Murder is nothing more than illegal killing. What counts as murder is again a relative social construct. I'm no Communist but the great joke is that Communism is actually the most credible attempt to create a universal morality. Communism may have failed, but compared to Libertarianism it actually looks quite credible. Libertarianism never got out of the starting blocks.
#14931895
SolarCross wrote:1:1 is a reasonable approximation regardless.


The importance of the approximation ratio depends on the argument associated with it. If you are debating for the 'one woman for every man' or vice versa argument, then an approximation is not satifactory as an Axiom - as any majority either side makes this false to reach a satifactory conclusion. Personally I think it is right for this definition to be challenged.
#14931898
SolarCross wrote:1:1 is a reasonable approximation regardless.

As posted in the Basement:

Fisher's Principle

Cm x M = Cf x F

(Where C is the cost to produce offspring)

is not

M=F.

When it comes to investment in the two sexes, equal numbers and equal investment are not always the same thing. As is often the case in mammals, the sex ratio at birth in humans is male-biased.
#14931901
B0ycey wrote:The importance of the approximation ratio depends on the argument associated with it. If you are debating for the 'one woman for every man' or vice versa argument, then an approximation is not satifactory as an Axiom - as any majority either side makes this false to reach a satifactory conclusion. Personally I think it is right for this definition to be challenged.


I am not saying it should not be challenged but i suspect pushing for recognition of (and exaggerating!) a male bias to the sex ratio is only going to reinforce the argument he is going to base on it because I believe he brought it up for making the case for monogamy over polygamy. If polygamy is allowed then the "natural" shortage of women will just be made worse not better. If you want to work against his monogamic position you need a female bias not a male bias.
#14931902
SolarCross wrote:I am not saying it should not be challenged but i suspect pushing for recognition of a male bias to the sex ratio is only going to reinforce the argument he is going to base on it because I believe he brought it up for making the case for monogamy over polygamy. If polygamy is allowed then the "natural" shortage of women will just be made worse not better. If you want to work against his monogamic position you need a female bias not a male bias.


I suspect he will use this as a basis for 'masturbation' is murder actually. So the ratio is important. But I am not naive like most on here. VS already knows where he is going with these debates and what he is trying to do is use logic as a conclusion. So I would reject all definitions if he was debating me. Anything else and I'd be diving in the bear trap. But he isn't debating me. So let Pote decide what he accepts as 'truths'.
#14931903
SolarCross wrote:worse not better

'Worse' is a value judgement.

A large fraction of mammal species are polygamous. Only a handful are socially monogamous.

And although Western culture remains officially monogamous, it tolerates de facto polygamy in many forms.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 11 Jul 2018 19:53, edited 3 times in total.
#14931904
ingliz wrote:'Worse' is a value judgement.

In mammals; a large fraction of mammals are polygamous. Only a handful of mammal species are socially monogamous.

:lol:

I know, lions, gorillas, bovines, etc etc. I am not really against polygamy myself, there is a eugenic dividend at least. There is a social stability cost though because for every satisfied alpha with all the poontang there will be some frustrated incels who potentially could be provoked to revolutionary fervour or aggressive warmongering (like Islam).

Incels are also natural candidates for homosexuality and frequenting prostitutes, which are also activities @Victoribus Spolia considers undesirable.

ingliz wrote:And although Western culture remains officially monogamous, it tolerates de facto polygamy in many forms.


This I also know. In the past by Christian scruples these alternative and unofficial polygamies were better circumscribed through making extra-marital sex prohibited and punishable and through making divorce difficult or even impossible. Polygamy is making a big comeback thanks to easy divorces and legally tolerated extra-marital sex.
#14931914
De facto polygamy has been tolerated on an endemic scale by Kings aristocrats, Popes, cardinals and bishops. Clearly traditional Christian morality was bankrupt, however it was immensely superior to traditional Judaic and Muslim morality which allowed legal polygamy as well.

Its time to stop looking to the prophet Mohammed and King David as role models and recognise them as the degenerate psychopathic filth that they really were.
#14931958
@Rich

First of all, whataboutism isn't a viable argument for Christian morality. I mean, I can make up a morality ten times better than all those moralities combined and if I have to draw from an existing source of morality, I can chose from Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. all of which are arguably better than any Abrahamic form of morality. You need to make an actual argument for Christianity instead of saying some other forms of morality are worse.

Second, Islam does legalize polygamy but it does not encourage it. If you were to actually read the goddamn Quran (which is something you need to do if you want to even talk about Islam), you would know that it recommends not to have multiple wives but that if you are going to, you need to follow a set of rules:

1. Possession of sufficient financial resources to provide for all expenses in the family

2. Physical prowess in for completely satisfying the sexual desires of each wife

3. Observance of complete justice and equality among each wife in every way without any favoritism

4. You may only have 4 wives

Third, given these rules you would be better off being a wife to a guy in the Caliphate than in the West. If a king or noble who was with another woman started a relationship with you in the West, you would not receive any support from your lover, your lover would have vested interest in making sure that no one would know of your relationship together perhaps even killing you if you attempted to get the word out, and if you had a child that child would be seen as a bastard and ostracized by the general population if it became known he was illegitimate.

@SolarCross

I know, lions, gorillas, bovines, etc etc. I am not really against polygamy myself, there is a eugenic dividend at least.


The fact that you're not against polygamy is really troubling. Furthermore I find the idea that there is a eugenic dividend in what women a polygamous guy marries is hilarious. Oh you should not look into the races of wives polygamous guys had in the Middle East, why you would be screaming bloody murder.

There is a social stability cost though because for every satisfied alpha with all the poontang there will be some frustrated incels who potentially could be provoked to revolutionary fervour.


Islam limits the amount of wives you can have (you can only have 4). Also I find it ironic that you are accusing revolutionary fervor to Islam while profession Christianity as the opposite. Islam encourages assimilation into local traditions and was more focused on reforming than dismantling the status quo. The reason why Islam allowed polygamy in the first place was because polygamy was widely practiced in 7th century Arabia and Mohammed decided that instead of banning it altogether, he would discourage it instead. Even alcohol is discouraged, not banned. The Quran says it is preferable to not drink alcohol but not necessary.

Meanwhile Christianity advocated for the dismantlement of the Roman establishment, to forego it's state customs, to rebel against the status quo, and then to follow another authority figure instead.

or aggressive warmongering (like Islam)


It might seem to you like warmongering if you only read European history and somehow think it's the only history you need to know. Of course to Europe (or at least bad history textbooks with a big Eurocentric bias i.e. your favorite) the Caliphate seemed like a huge evil force threatening all modern European values despite such values never even existing in medieval times. But the Caliphate, and this might come as a shock to you, had actual objectives and those objectives weren't blind expansionism because that's a bad objective that will lead to no where. The original Arab conquests for example, weren't conquering territory for the sake of territory but were doing so because population density in Arabia was too high and migration was inevitable. Even if Islam never existed, the Arab migrations would've still happened. They need to settle in new places so they conquered. The conquest of North Africa was to take it's wealthy cities and to have a better hold on the Mediterranean. The conquest of Spain started out as a war to secure the border between Morocco and Spain but ended up as a fully-fledged conquest. The conquest of Malta and Sicily was, once again to have a better hold on the Mediterranean. The conquest of Central Asia was to get rid of those pesky tribes who frequently raided Umayyad cities. Saying that Islam is evil because it conquered a lot of things is like saying the British Empire or Christianity is evil because it conquered a lot of things.

In short you're being ridiculous.
#14931962
Oxymandias wrote:@SolarCross
The fact that you're not against polygamy is really troubling. Furthermore I find the idea that there is a eugenic dividend in what women a polygamous guy marries is hilarious. Oh you should not look into the races of wives polygamous guys had in the Middle East, why you would be screaming bloody murder.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what "eugenic" means? It seems like once again you are getting off all half cocked about something you didn't understand.
#14931965
Oxymandias wrote:How many debates are you having right now? Like, you should take it easy, it's hard to debate three people all at the same time.


I am trying to have only two formal debates, one with Potemkin and one with Saeko.

I enjoyed my conversation with you, but I already declared I was going to restate my position one more time on that thread, so I am bound by my word not to post a response to your last post. I said my peace on that topic for now.

Two is enough and it would be far more enjoyable if people didn't post on these threads just to be dicks after I asked politely for other posters to let the two main debaters hash it out.

People can do what they want, but I am not going to follow the trolls under bridge.

I will simply wait for @Potemkin's response, just I am waiting for @Saeko in my other thread.

This will hopefully become my only activity on PoFo for the foreseeable future here directly (I need to cut back and would prefer the debates I do have on the Forum to have substance).
#14931988
Intellectual Spoonful

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Two is enough and it would be far more enjoyable if people didn't post on these threads just to be dicks after I asked politely for other posters to let the two main debaters hash it out.

People can do what they want, but I am not going to follow the trolls under bridge.

I will simply wait for @Potemkin's response, just I am waiting for @Saeko in my other thread.

This will hopefully become my only activity on PoFo for the foreseeable future here directly (I need to cut back and would prefer the debates I do have on the Forum to have substance).
^What a myopic approach to the universe. Debate (classic mechanical thought) became obsolete after our minds went online (the internet is a technological extension of consciousness). You'll never be able to debate an individual again. If you want to debate an individual, you'll have to erect artificial walls, build an isolated auditorium, and post signs everywhere that clearly read "Shhh, debate in progress," "No trespassing, this is private intellectual property."

Today, the debate circuit is theatre, entertainment, sport, etc. True discoveries can never come out of a debate. Formal debate is a dose of yesterday's knowledge, an intellectual spoonful of conceit. A person participating in a debate is limited by his/her own perception or capacity for knowledge.

The internet is structural-functional and holds all viewpoints simultaneously. The internet can process the past and project the future through a data-driven present (why do you think we're trying to establish the internet of things?). Again, this technology is a (early telepathic building set) manifestation of the human mind we all share. If we continue to ignore this, machine intelligence will replace us. The information you post online :borg: can and will be used by machine intelligence. We must collaborate or face termination by our own creations.

Sincerely,

-A Ghost in the Machine.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 12 Jul 2018 01:48, edited 1 time in total.
#14932031
RhetoricThug wrote:Today, the debate circuit is theatre, entertainment, sport, etc.

- Reinforcement for self image - If two people wish to engage in a private debate, PM is readily available. What is the point in posting it publicly but denying comment? Kind of a "hey look at me, I'm so smart and cultured, look at me" thing ? Then there's the "I'm winning" aspect …



Zam ;)
#14932131
@Zamuel Sure, sounds like a decent assumption. :up:

On a different note. RT stated that man-made laws reflect a culture's moral code. RT would also like to state that Natural Law is a non-man-made form of objective morality. Someone once summed it up as:

Natural Law is a set of universal, inherent, objective, non-man-made, eternal and immutable conditions which govern the consequences of behaviors of beings with the capacity for understanding the difference between harmful and non-harmful behavior.


In-fact, here's a 9 hour presentation on the existence of objective morality.


Here's a link:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law

Y'all have fun with the debate. RT will drop by this dense realm to remind you that we're consciousness having a human experience.

-The Universe
#14932161
RhetoricThug wrote:On a different note. RT stated that man-made laws reflect a culture's moral code. RT would also like to state that Natural Law is a non-man-made form of objective morality.

RT will drop by this dense realm to remind you that we're consciousness having a human experience.

I'd surely go along with law reflecting morality. As for "Natural Law" if a consciousness decides to create/believe in one … then at least one consciousness will experience that reality. I'm not so sure you can get much of a consensus going for it though.

Zam
#14932283
Zamuel wrote:As for "Natural Law" if a consciousness decides to create/believe in one … then at least one consciousness will experience that reality. I'm not so sure you can get much of a consensus going for it though.
Well, one can say the same thing about gravitational theory. Nonetheless, gravity appears to exist as a natural phenomenon.

Examples of natural law: Bill of rights, human rights, etc. Natural law is the theory or belief that certain rights exist independently of any government's granting of those rights. Generally, whenever a group rebels against their government and asserts rights that the government hasn't granted them, they are making a claim of natural law.

The existence of objective morality or Natural Law protects us from the whim of man-made law. Humankind will be ruled by tyrants If we're unable to get a consensus going for the existence of objective morality. We have countless examples of ruthless dictators that arbitrarily deny the existence of objective morality. Pick one, and ask yourself, is that the kind of society you'd like to live in?
#14932285
RhetoricThug wrote:The existence of objective morality or Natural Law protects us from the whim of man-made law. Humankind will be ruled by tyrants If we're unable to get a consensus going for the existence of objective morality. We have countless examples of ruthless dictators that arbitrarily deny the existence of objective morality. Pick one, and ask yourself, is that the kind of society you'd like to live in?


And this is the point of the debate me and Potemkin are going to have. :eh:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 15

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]