Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #110]

So far, they derive from the self.

Yes. But what is the self? Indeed where is the self?

Beyond that screams the <possibility> of fallacious reasoning? Why? If a "moral law giver" or "intuition giver" exists, statistically, our moral compasses and intuitions would be relatively the same with all projected 'moral' topics, not just the more logically obvious ones, like "cancer is bad".

I am unsure/undecided whether cancer existing is something we can moralize about.

That aside, I understand your argument that we ought to see things relatively the same way, but why would us not doing so mean that there is no creator which has imparted such sensibilities within ourselves (in the sense that if it were given)? Why do we not all exhibit the same gift by putting it out into the world?

Or, why didn't the creator simply make it so we were all hive-minded, could hide nothing from one another, could see ourselves as one entity with many complementary and necessary parts? Something which was an individual mind made up of billions of individual minds which were all working toward a singular goal of surviving in this universe and working toward objectives related to that goal within a system best suited to that goal?

Does it mean that because the creator didn't make things that way, that a creator therefore does not exist? Or if it does exist, that it must be bonkers, and evil for that?

I have found that when the focus is on one particular concept of a creator-mind, (specifically the Abrahamic one and all of is various versions) I am left with such questions unanswered. But when I take into consideration, other God-Concepts and fit these all together alongside reports of what folk experience with NDEs (et al) and a whole bunch of other stuff, (including most recently Julian Archetypes) such broader spectrums open my ability to understand things in ways which any one religious concept or scientific theory alone cannot hope to help achieve for me.

This is not to say that I exclude all concepts of the Abrahamic God, (for there are pearls to be gleaned there as well) but I do not limit the self to any one particular platform of perception.

Things tend to start off as gut feelings, but gut feeling alone is not enough, any more than is one particular platform of perception.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #111]

The topic of 'morality' essentially places a judgement call upon a said action. (i.e.) "Murder is wrong" or "love is right," etc etc etc... Theists argue our intuitive senses, or our 'gut feelings', about the rightness or wrongness of an expressed action is given to us by an invisible 'giver'. If an "invisible giver" gives, then why the heck is this 'invisible giver' always ~100% successful in giving the universal answer about some stuff, but with other actions, not at all? Maybe because we do not get our "intuitive senses" from some stated and/or asserted invisible "intuitive senses giver" after all?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #111]

The topic of 'morality' essentially places a judgement call upon a said action. (i.e.) "Murder is wrong" or "love is right," etc etc etc... Theists argue our intuitive senses, or our 'gut feelings', about the rightness or wrongness of an expressed action is given to us by an invisible 'giver'. If an "invisible giver" gives, then why the heck is this 'invisible giver' always ~100% successful in giving the universal answer about some stuff, but with other actions, not at all? Maybe because we do not get our "intuitive senses" from some stated and/or asserted invisible "intuitive senses giver" after all?

Perhaps. But maybe we are ignoring some and not others and this is where the disagreement surfaces?

The way I have come to understand "things" is along the lines of "we are the giver/creator" - and we created this particular experience as a means of exploring "things" which can be explored due to the nature of that which we created - for that purpose.

Does that (if true) make us "bonkers" on "unintelligent" or "immoral"?

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #111]

The topic of 'morality' essentially places a judgement call upon a said action. (i.e.) "Murder is wrong" or "love is right," etc etc etc... Theists argue our intuitive senses, or our 'gut feelings', about the rightness or wrongness of an expressed action is given to us by an invisible 'giver'. If an "invisible giver" gives, then why the heck is this 'invisible giver' always ~100% successful in giving the universal answer about some stuff, but with other actions, not at all? Maybe because we do not get our "intuitive senses" from some stated and/or asserted invisible "intuitive senses giver" after all?

Perhaps. But maybe we are ignoring some and not others and this is where the disagreement surfaces?

The way I have come to understand "things" is along the lines of "we are the giver/creator" - and we created this particular experience as a means of exploring "things" which can be explored due to the nature of that which we created - for that purpose.

Does that (if true) make us "bonkers" on "unintelligent" or "immoral"?

My challenge is to the theist(s), who wants to argue that an 'invisible intuition giver' exists. We can test this pretty easily. Are you game?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #111]

The topic of 'morality' essentially places a judgement call upon a said action. (i.e.) "Murder is wrong" or "love is right," etc etc etc... Theists argue our intuitive senses, or our 'gut feelings', about the rightness or wrongness of an expressed action is given to us by an invisible 'giver'. If an "invisible giver" gives, then why the heck is this 'invisible giver' always ~100% successful in giving the universal answer about some stuff, but with other actions, not at all? Maybe because we do not get our "intuitive senses" from some stated and/or asserted invisible "intuitive senses giver" after all?

Perhaps. But maybe we are ignoring some and not others and this is where the disagreement surfaces?

The way I have come to understand "things" is along the lines of "we are the giver/creator" - and we created this particular experience as a means of exploring "things" which can be explored due to the nature of that which we created - for that purpose.

Does that (if true) make us "bonkers" on "unintelligent" or "immoral"?

My challenge is to the theist(s), who wants to argue that an 'invisible intuition giver' exists. We can test this pretty easily. Are you game?

That is an interesting phrase (are you game)

Okay - I am happy to argue the perspective that we are that "invisible intuition giver" (re my prior post which sketched this concept) and look forward to this "pretty easy test" you have in mind.

[POI]

In case any theists are game, here is the easy test:

A) Exactly when is it good to engage in torture/murder? (Answer) Never
B) Exactly when is it good to engage in rape? (Answer) Never
C) Exactly when is it good to engage in euthanasia?

A) and B) are 'obvious' and universal. And they are apparently also the answers given to us by this deemed 'invisible intuition giver'. And yet, why is C) going to vary quite widely in it's answers? Isn't the act of euthanasia also a morally judgable action, which requires the objective assessment of a "moral law giver", which this 'giver' then passes down his "intuitive senses" to us?

[SiNcE_1985]

1) So far, what I'm reading from you is an argument from 'substance dualism'? (i.e.): Substance dualists typically argue that the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects: size, shape, location, solidity, motion, adherence to the laws of physics, and so on. (yes-ish <or> no-ish)? If no, please redirect accordingly.

Bingo, amigo.

That is it.

2) Evidence suggests our (personalities/thoughts/brain states/other) are directly affected by what happens to us physically.

True.

Evidence suggests that there is a definite correlation between the mind/body.

No doubt about it.

But we are talking origins, here...and the chicken/egg problem is damning to the entire theory.

You can't have one without the other...not naturally, at least.

Which then begs the question, where does our mind reside?

I think a better question would be; where did our minds come from?

[POI]

1) So far, what I'm reading from you is an argument from 'substance dualism'? (i.e.): Substance dualists typically argue that the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects: size, shape, location, solidity, motion, adherence to the laws of physics, and so on. (yes-ish <or> no-ish)? If no, please redirect accordingly.

Bingo, amigo.

That is it.

2) Evidence suggests our (personalities/thoughts/brain states/other) are directly affected by what happens to us physically.

True.

Evidence suggests that there is a definite correlation between the mind/body.

No doubt about it.

But we are talking origins, here...and the chicken/egg problem is damning to the entire theory.

You can't have one without the other...not naturally, at least.

Which then begs the question, where does our mind reside?

I think a better question would be; where did our minds come from?

Since you insist on some invisible and supernatural force as "the origin", then maybe you can engage the simple test asked in post 116?

[POI]

maybe we are ignoring some and not others and this is where the disagreement surfaces?

I reckon the deist/theist will argue you cannot ignore your 'god given intuitions'. If I were to ask any deist/theist, in any state of mind, their answer would always be the same, when asked if murder is ever good. They would always state "no". However, if they were asked if 'gay sex' is ever good, or if 'abortion' is ever good, why is this 'intuition giver' now giving differing answers to differing folks?

[William]

maybe we are ignoring some and not others and this is where the disagreement surfaces?

I reckon the deist/theist will argue you cannot ignore your 'god given intuitions'. If I were to ask any deist/theist, in any state of mind, their answer would always be the same, when asked if murder is ever good. They would always state "no". However, if they were asked if 'gay sex' is ever good, or if 'abortion' is ever good, why is this 'intuition giver' now giving differing answers to differing folks?

Isn't what you are asking here, pointing out that there are some morals which are (perhaps) universally accepted, and others which are not?
If so, why not simply look at those that are as being possible evidence for these supposed 'god given intuitions' and anything else is not a moral issue and also needn't be regarded as claims to seriously consider?