Moral Luck

[Talishi]

Two men get drunk, then get in their cars and attempt to drive home.

One of them blacks out and runs off the road to the right, where he sleeps it off in the ditch.

The other one blacks out and runs off the road to the left, where he kills a pedestrian.

Both men performed precisely the same actions, except that chance intervened in the latter case, making him culpable for manslaughter.

The lesson is that the world is a chaotic place where simple black and white moral rules like “Yer either with me or yer with Qaeda!� handed down from on high are not cut out to deal with it. Divine command theory is as ineffective as central planning proved to be in managing a nation’s economy. In reality, even morals and ethics are subject to the principle of the market, also known, in a biological context, as natural selection.

In places like Ireland, where the Catholic Church was the final moral authority for centuries, the people have risen up to strip the Church of power when the sexual abuse of their children by the very arbiters of that moral authority reached a tipping point. From time immemorial, neighbors have risen up to deal with wife abusers or cat burglars when the local constable refused to do anything about them.

For debate:

Is morality handed down from on high, as a black and white proposition, or is morality subject to the uncounted variables that form the fabric of life as we know it?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 20 by William]



[center]
Struggling to get an answer.[/center]

Well I gave my answer.

Not to my question, you didn't.

Sure, you can call it an opinion if you want to.

You didn't give me your opinion about the anthropomorphic metaphor of good and evil. I'm still waiting for you to answer that. You gave me an answer to something else, instead.

You gave me the quite useless answer to whom can decide your opinion.
I already know who decides.

I decide MY opinion, and you decide YOURS.
I got it.

Several times now.
Can we move on?

You seem stuck on answering the wrong question, my friend.

So why do you think my answer didn't answer your question?

I already answered you.
Your answer has NOTHING to do with the question, that's why.

______________________

FOR THE RECORD:

I didn't ask who decides.
That just wasn't at all the question.

______________________

I think my answer was adequate in relation to your question.

Well, you think wrong.

"Are God and Devil anthropomorphic metaphors for good and evil? " I might have had a different answer.

Fine, answer THAT.
That's the question I've been talking about.

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by William]

If your question had been worded;

"Are God and Devil anthropomorphic metaphors for good and evil? " I might have had a different answer.

Fine, answer THAT.
That's the question I've been talking about.

So I hope that you can appreciate how important it is to ask a question correctly. As it stands I answered the question you did ask, suitably.



So now - to the actual question you meant to ask, "Are God and Devil anthropomorphic metaphors for good and evil? " first you will have to define 'god' and 'devil'.

I think that the good and the evil are 'anthropomorphized' through human actions of good and evil.

Which is a case of the individual deciding what actions they will take and whether those actions are done for the purpose of evil or good individuals determine for themselves.

"Devil" and "God" appear to be able to share the same 'space' as it were...a bit like "The Force" which can be used for either good or evil purposes.
It seems that the connect between God and Good and Devil and Evil and some dispute as to which came first.

Is morality handed down from on high, as a black and white proposition?

It depends upon what 'handed down from on high' is defined as. Is it from extraterrestrials (as a literal position) or does it mean 'from a greater source' than human consciousness, as in some unseen consciousness(es)?

Both might be possible, even in congruity but it is perhaps not here nor there as most of us as individuals seem to have some innate sense of morality which is necessary for survival anyway.

Is morality subject to the uncounted variables that form the fabric of life as we know it? I don't think that is debatable, as this is obviously so. I do not see that it has to be either or though, which is what the question implies.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by William]





[center]This is probably the most difficult question in the universe.
Because it sure SEEMS that way, doesn't it?[/center]

So I hope that you can appreciate how important it is to ask a question correctly. As it stands I answered the question you did ask, suitably.

Now, why didn't I think of that?

I think that the good and the evil are 'anthropomorphized' through human actions of good and evil.

I have no idea what that means.

You seem to be using the word "anthropomorphized" in a very different way than I do. Could you explain what YOU mean by it? I asked if you think that GOD and the DEVIL are anthropomorphic metaphors for good and evil.

Since the question is well worded NOW, perhaps you can word your answer well too. I think that well worded answers are just as important as well worded questions. Don't you?

[William]

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities and is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

Like your favorite teddy given 'life'

'GOD' is often made in the image of humans in the same way.

However, why is it supposed that the case is 'therefore GOD/DEVIL is made in the image of human. and thus ethics./morals are developed from human experience and then transferred onto imagined effigies called 'GOD' and 'DEVIL'

It could just as easily been the other way around, and the opposing entities have attempted (and continue to),to anthropomorph into the human psyche.

Thus more than likely it will be a case of both things happening, and until we know otherwise, the subject is best approached in this light.





Good and evil are given the opportunity of expression through the human experience. Any biological critter which reaches the point of intelligent self awareness has to develop an understanding of morality and ethics as part of the survival process...it is natural, but being so does not mean God and Devil are not also natural and do not also exist.

So the concepts regarding ethics develop as they naturally must. The OP questions ask 'is it one way or the other?' but leaves no room for the possibility of it being both.

Now we understand the argument of Anthropomorphism enough to say 'Teddy doesn't really talk or walk because teddy is a stuffed representation of a bear, and we see plainly that you are moving Teddy and talking in a funny voice - putting words in Teddy's mouth'.

WE can use Teddy to nurture Dolly or rape Dolly as we choose to.

Does this equate then to GOD and DEVIL using humans as puppets, one for Good and the other for Evil?

We can then move up the Anthropomorphism conceptualization scale and ta da! We have Pinocchio who has been magically transformed from an image of wooden boy doll to becoming a 'real boy' which then goes through a series of trials and tribulations to do with morality and ethics in which he eventually overcomes of his own volition through trial and error.

Does this mean that God and Devil do not exist because a real boy can decide for himself what he will and will not do, and will or will not do it?

In that there is a parallel with the creation story of GOD breathing Life into the human form. The life is the consciousness and the consciousness is that which animates the form. The form has been Anthropomorphized by the Being which created it.

So the consciousness within the form is the life breath which animates and by this we can see what appears to be the consciousness thus enabled to either be Good or Evil, but is that because the consciousness is Good and Evil or is this because of the form consciousness is within which allows for the consciousness to make choices based on knowing there is more than one way to do something...to get something done?

In relation to the process of biological evolution we understand the whole planet is teaming with animated life forms and the debate is whether it is a real boy or merely a puppet.

The buck stops with the individual. 'The Devil made me do it' isn't rational therefore 'God made me do it' also isn't rational.

Does this mean these beings do not exist? No, it means they would act in the role of encourages, involved with the individuals choice.

Just in the same way, good and evil are also doing that anyway.

So the answer to your question (which you first presented as a statement with a question mark, which defines the question as a rhetorical one) is that it could be or may not be the case.

Who gets to decide?

You do. I do. We do.

That's what being 'a real boy' is all about.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 24 by William]




[center]
We KNOW that humans can anthropomorphize.. that's why we have a WORD for that. What we DO NOT KNOW is if any gods, goddesses or demons exist.[/center]

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities and is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

I just love definitions like that.
Thank you so much.

'GOD' is often made in the image of humans in the same way.

Sure.
Most gods and goddesses are presented with human like bodies and human like traits.

However, why is it supposed that the case is 'therefore GOD/DEVIL is made in the image of human. and thus ethics./morals are developed from human experience and then transferred onto imagined effigies called 'GOD' and 'DEVIL'

We have plenty of evidence that there are humans who can do that kind of thing and NO evidence of any gods, goddesses or demons.

It could just as easily been the other way around, and the opposing entities have attempted (and continue to),to anthropomorph into the human psyche.

I think that's why Genesis has it that man was made in God's image, and not the other way around. I think that makes for a better god story, don't you?

Thus more than likely it will be a case of both things happening, and until we know otherwise, the subject is best approached in this light.

Yes, lets not pretend that HUMANS can imagine things.
That would be very unreasonable, after all right?

I say NOT RIGHT.

Good and evil are given the opportunity of expression through the human experience.

What do you mean they were GIVEN?
Given by whom?

People HAVE morals ... we know that already.

Any biological critter which reaches the point of intelligent self awareness has to develop an understanding of morality and ethics as part of the survival process...it is natural, but being so does not mean God and Devil are not also natural and do not also exist.

Yeah sure.. as an agnostic, I have NO knowledge about the existence of ANY gods, goddesses, or demons. But I DO have knowledge of our human propensity to see faces in the clouds. We very EASILY project what we can imagine onto nature.

We very EASILY anthropomorphism our human characteristics onto story book characters. That's actually child's play.

So the concepts regarding ethics develop as they naturally must.

If we already GOT nature, no gods or goddesses or demons are needed as an explanation.

WE can use Teddy to nurture Dolly or rape Dolly as we choose to.

Rape ????

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by Blastcat]

Yes, lets not pretend that HUMANS can imagine things.
That would be very unreasonable, after all right?

I say NOT RIGHT.

Is that the same as saying "lets pretend that humans cannot imagine things"?

IF so THEN:

Tsk Tsk - there you go again misrepresenting what I actually said by twisting that into something you have interpreted me saying.

How can a person have a decent argument with another when the other habitually does this blastcat?

All I can do is either ignore you (which is not my preference) or continue to ask you to change your approach.

I too say NOT RIGHT.

Where in my statement;

Thus more than likely it will be a case of both things happening, and until we know otherwise, the subject is best approached in this light.

is it even possible to construe that I am saying "lets pretend that HUMANS cannot imagine things."?

Otherwise;

What ARE you saying when you state "Yes, lets not pretend that HUMANS can imagine things"?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by William]




[center]

Completely misunderstanding what NOT RIGHT means[/center]

Yes, lets not pretend that HUMANS can imagine things.
That would be very unreasonable, after all right?

I say NOT RIGHT.

Is that the same as saying "lets pretend that humans cannot imagine things"?


No.
It's the opposite.

Lets NOT pretend that human cant.
Because we all know that humans can pretend.

We all know that humans can imagine things.

I was being ironic in the first statement, and then I asked a rhetorical question an then I said the statement was NOT RIGHT. "Not right" doesn't mean right. It means the opposite of right. It means wrong.

So I was saying that ironic statement is WRONG.
That's why I said it was NOT right.

What is NOT RIGHT is WRONG.

You didn't get the irony.
I should not use complicated sentence structures.

SORRY.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 27 by Blastcat]


[center]

Completely misunderstanding what NOT RIGHT means[/center]

Yes, lets not pretend that HUMANS can imagine things.
That would be very unreasonable, after all right?

I say NOT RIGHT.

Is that the same as saying "lets pretend that humans cannot imagine things"?

No.
It's the opposite.

Lets NOT pretend that human cant.
Because we all know that humans can pretend.

We all know that humans can imagine things.

I was being ironic in the first statement, and then I asked a rhetorical question an then I said the statement was NOT RIGHT. "Not right" doesn't mean right. It means the opposite of right. It means wrong.

So I was saying that ironic statement is WRONG.
That's why I said it was NOT right.

What is NOT RIGHT is WRONG.

You didn't get the irony.
I should not use complicated sentence structures.

SORRY.

You might want to pretend that humans cannot invent, create and imagine things that don't exist, but I don't want to pretend. I know that humans can and DO invent things in their heads. I know that people anthropomorphize their cherished notions.

What I DON'T do is to pretend otherwise.

Hope that's cleared up.
Let me know if you need more in the way of clarification.

Always happy to help.

[William]

[Replying to post 27 by Blastcat]

You might want to pretend that humans cannot invent, create and imagine things that don't exist, but I don't want to pretend. I know that humans can and DO invent things in their heads. I know that people anthropomorphize their cherished notions.

Right - that is what I thought you were getting at in your 'ironic manner'.

So you STILL have misrepresented me and what I said.

"Thus more than likely it will be a case of both things happening, and until we know otherwise, the subject is best approached in this light."

So no, no sign therein that I was saying we should IGNORE the human imagination element. = Let us not ignore either 'side'.

Way different to how you have attempted to misrepresent what I have said.

I am done with attempting to converse with you until you can stop this fallacy of misrepresentation. One can only ask politely so many times before one must accept that the respect asked for will not be given.

Thanks, but no thanks. I take it as a personal insult and would report it but it isn't against the rules for anyone to misrepresent anyone else. So, *shrugs*, I withdraw.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 29 by William]



[center]
I think this back and forth boils down to comprehension problems.[/center]

You might want to pretend that humans cannot invent, create and imagine things that don't exist, but I don't want to pretend. I know that humans can and DO invent things in their heads. I know that people anthropomorphize their cherished notions.

Right - that is what I thought you were getting at in your 'ironic manner'.

Then your explanation of that was previously EXTREMELY poorly written.
From what I read, you were completely confused.


I think you still are, quite frankly.

So you STILL have misrepresented me and what I said.

"Thus more than likely it will be a case of both things happening, and until we know otherwise, the subject is best approached in this light."

I haven't even addressed that quote yet, how can I have misinterpreted it?

What are you talking about?


What I did was to NOT address it at all.
You presented me with an IF / NOT IF case.. it was NOT IF.. so I didn't continue.

You might have noticed that I didn't continue. You wrote : "IF SO...." Well it wasn't so.

I just said that you misunderstood me, explained why and ended it there.
You still seem to not understand what I'm talking about.


In any case, allow me to address that quote of yours NOW:

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure what you think I am MISINTERPRETING, but I just don't agree with your statement that everything that we can imagine has to be real. I think we have NO PROBLEM imagining what isn't real at all.

Just think of all the marvelous fiction novels out there... People had to imagine those.

Here's an example: We can believe in Santa Claus.

I say Santa Clause is most probably made up. I think that for some, Santa Claus is an anthropomorphic metaphor for "Holiday Spirit". ( It's the SEASON to be jolly.. fra la la la la la la la la ) I guess that Santa can represent to us a season, too.


Of course it's not more likely that imagined things are real.
We know that people invent.

We know that people have moral categories of good and evil.
We do NOT know that gods, goddesses or demons are real.

Until such time as we can say that gods, goddesses or demons are JUST as likely to be real as people imagining things, we should say that gods, goddesses and demons are anthropomorphic projections .

That is to say that God was most likely made in Man's image ( Father, if you will ) than the other way around.

You might believe it's otherwise, say, if you think that God is real.
I have no evidence that gods, goddesses, or demons or any other kinds of supernatural beings are real.

So no, no sign therein that I was saying we should IGNORE the human imagination element. = Let us not ignore either 'side'.

Why do you think I would ever want to ignore the other side?
I don't. I won't.

What I am TRYING to do, friend, is to discuss the other side.
I can't have a discussion ALONE with just one side.

I am DEBATING with the other side, and that is YOU.
Have you noticed that?


I am NOT ignoring the fact that what can be imagined in our heads can POSSIBLY ( even if the possibility is very remote ) be true.

That's the whole POINT of this debate:

It's either TRUE or it's NOT TRUE.

I am asking if God and the Devil are anthropomorphic metaphors for good and evil?

You might take the position that God and the Devil are REAL.
But of course, that is based on your belief. We have no evidence that they are.

What we DO have evidence for ( and plenty of that ) is that people dream things up.
There's no question about that.

There are thousands of imaginary beings that people have invented... ghosts, goblins, monsters of all kinds, fairies and so on and so on. Let's not forget, also the numerous gods and goddesses. Do you think that these are all real? I think NOT, my friend.

You probably think that at least SOME of them are imaginary gods, goddesses, demons, and so on.

I don't IGNORE the fact that people can imagine things, that's my whole point.
People can and DO imagine things all the time.

I don't see any evidence that the God Hypothesis is anything more than a work of fiction that people have imagined. Makes for wonderful stories.

I am done with attempting to converse with you until you can stop this fallacy of misrepresentation.

Suit yourself.
You don't seem to be getting anywhere.. So, perhaps the best course of action for you is to abandon for now. Learning how to debate takes a bit of time. I've been at this for almost 4 years now. I've learned a lot since I started, let me tell you.

This is a very good place to learn how to think better and write better. I highly recommend it. Don't get too discouraged. I say just stick with it... notice your successes. Notice your failures. That's what I do, and it works.

I have a big interest though, I think it takes one in order to be willing to slog through this kind of thing with any success. I don't think we are communicating well, and that's partly because of me. I am not writing in a way that makes much sense to you.

I wish I could.
It's not really happening.

I'm a bit at a loss.
Maybe if you asked me more questions, I would get a feel for what part of my approach is wrong. Because right now, we are WILDLY talking "past each other". This is an extreme example of how two rather intelligent people can almost completely misunderstand each other. Sorry. I really did try my best.

I guess at this point, all I would be doing is repeating myself, which would be boring for everyone.

Your answers don't make a lot of sense to me, either. So when I try to respond, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. Of course, that was not my intent.

I am trying to reflect to you what I think you mean. I think that I fail almost all the time at that. Isn't that interesting? When I ask a question, and you reply "Who chooses?" I just stare at the screen a bit. It's a reply alright.. but it makes NO sense whatsoever to me. I was looking for a yes or a no, basically.

I don't care WHO chooses, I didn't ask who chooses. I KNOW who chooses.
Each and every one of us chooses.

I want to know what your CHOICE is... that's why I asked the question.
I wanted YOUR CHOICE in the matter. So, why do you ask who chooses?

I have NO idea why that seems so vital to you.
It's like you have an idea in your head, and it makes sense, but you aren't communicating it so that I can understand it.

What are you getting at by asking "Who gets to decide?" ?


I don't think you know what I mean by my question concerning anthropomorphic metaphors.


I have been trying to help you figure it out 9 times back and forth.

One question.
Nine attempts to answer.

I still do not have an answer.
That's amazing.

Maybe it's a record.

One can only ask politely so many times before one must accept that the respect asked for will not be given.

If I disrespect you in any way, please feel free to use the report function.

I've seen many Christians take offense and abandon a debate.
In a huff.

Take offense if you want to.
I can only tell you that my intent is not to offend you but to discuss your ideas.

Thanks, but no thanks. I take it as a personal insult and would report it but it isn't against the rules for anyone to misrepresent anyone else. So, *shrugs*, I
withdraw.

If I insult you in any way, please feel free to use the report function.
But I agree... we aren't getting anywhere.

You can't seem to understand the question.
So, I agree, this has gone on long enough.

I think that we both can say that we tried.
Good luck in your other debates !!