Dutch wrote:Metacrock wrote:No they don't. you are denuding the concept of the moral content and reducing it to behavior. WE can't think animals are making moral decisions just because they do behaviors. It's not a decision if it's instinct and moral is about decision making.
1) Who says decision making is anything more than instinct?
what are you a Daleck? "exterminate!" Exterminate!"
2) Who says animals can't make decisions?
I have no evidence that they make moral depictions. they make little depictions such s "fetch." they don't ask "why am I here?" Is there a dogie heaven that will go to in the end? maybe they do but I have no reason to think they do. I never seem the deliberate when they fight. I never see a dog turn the other cheek. Maybe we can't see the deliberateness.
Both of these questions need to be answered before you can make the above claim. Not so much the "who", more whether or not you are making assumptions based on your desires, rather than facts.
I think I answer them pretty effectively. I make decisions. I think long and hard about moral decisions. I know the criteria i use for making them I know the reductions bull shit tricks of losing phenomena that would reduce humans to the level of pond scum so science types can feel in control. No question in my mind that I make decisions because I deliberate.
I have no reason to think dogs make decisions and that's enough for me. I know cats don't because they are stupid.
A fact for question 1): Research has shown that decisions are made on a neurological level, before we become aware of them.
bull shit! I know that research that is crap! it's based upon assumptions of ideology about the nature of consciousness and losing the phenomena.
the data about God part of the brain is garbage because it's done without the M scale they have no control mechanism for knowing a religious experience is. yet they insist on assertion that they have proved something I think this is the same kind of deal.
A fact for question 2): Observations have been made (I think it was in the UK) of dolphins guiding a young whale from a river back to open waters. Why would they do that if they behaved purely on instinct?
how do you prove there's no instinct for helping? you have no evidence they deliberated about it.
Just examples that should indicate that it is not all as black and white as you might prefer.
when did I say it's black and white? Its' red and blue.
Metacrock wrote:I think that's a misconception based upon stereo types. can you give me an example?
Is it right to help save starving children in third world countries? (This is what I consider typical "Christian" behavior, often based on a sense of moral obligation. Not necessarily absent in non-Christians, but I think you'll agree it is often stronger among Christians.)[/quote]
I yes that's so utterly stupid. anyone can see we should allow starving people to die so they wont over populate the earth. but why wait? why don't we help them along? I have a little modest proposal on that, kill two birds with one stone ("birds" so to speak). why just let them die? that's such a waste.
since we are playing God why don't we just make Soylent Green? or is that what you are getting at?
Yeah moral nihilism 