Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm
Since it's rhetorical I won't address it.
The question was rhetorical because I was trying to make a dramatical point and because I don't believe abstract conjurings like Yahweh exist in reality. Such conjurings only exist in the gullible minds of the religious.
I was once in the no distant past suffering from such things.
But I have been since cured of such afflictions thanks to science, accumulating of knowledge and off course using my frontal cortex more.
But it must be nice to believe your beloved God is responsible for the great suffering and pain of non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired).
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm
You mean I should regard you as God? rely on your definition?
I was pointing out that there is a objective mechanism that leads to a kind of morality that is not based on whim or subjective religious ponderings of ignorant ancient desert goat herders.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm
You are equating empathy with morality, if that's your definition of moral then what about cases where a person feels empathy for an immoral person?
Don't straw man please.
I said affective empathy leads to an intrinsically sense of morality mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm
This is absurd, should I refuse to inject a child with vaccine because I feel empathy when they express extreme fear?
Furthermore on what basis can a person be deemed immoral when (as I assume you believe) we have no will, we are fantastically complex deterministic machines; how can a machine whose parts adhere to scientific laws, act in a way at odds with those laws?
The objective mechanism is not flawless off course. But for the most part works.
There is a positive feed back loop involving this mechanism when we couple it with our rational.
We also have a rational. We know without a vaccine a person might experience a much greater suffering, pain and even death then the pain and suffering from a needle. The mechanism triggers again with a much stronger response for we empathize even more thinking of the grim possible future outcome. The empathic response is greater for the much greater evil then the small one.
The small evil therefore becomes necessary.
Observation: Is still in question if the universe, our actions are fully deterministic. Quantum mechanics uncertainty leaves room for doubt.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm
Besides why should I embrace empathy? what if I do not care about others and do not have empathy?
Sir one does not embrace affective empathy. One either has a developed affective response or not.
Off course one can ignore this morality.
The response will still exist no matter if one ignores it. I can still inflict pain but I will feel remorse after. Feel bad.
Psychopaths don't have this objective mechanism-affective empathy developed. Therefore do not have this intrinsically developed morality.
They will harm other human being with no remorse or issue.
See Ted Bundy and other such very malevolent individuals.
Off course this objective morality is better then the subjective ponderings of ignorant ancient goat herders: can kill witches, fortunetellers, gays; can beat a slave as long as him/her not dies after two days.
The religious people have been ignoring this objective morality(ex:the empathic responded triggered when one was harming a gay person, slave)for eons just to appease a fictitious being capricious needs.
Some good food for thought.
Enjoy!