If there is no disagreement about facts, then there cannot be a disagreement via the golden rule either. What are the specific facts in your example? Did the drug addict become addicted through his own will? Did he harm anyone? Does he intend to do it again if no punishment is inflicted? If yes to all, then jail sounds just, and nobody could say it is undeserved; not even him with regards to justice. If no to all, then jail sounds unjust, and in which case, nobody would want that punishment. — Samuel Lacrampe

I’ve attempted to make my example clear and I’m willing to clear it up more. Unless I change something about it, the example is still the same, which I would still like you to address. Yes he did it through his own will and no he didn’t harm anyone. And to answer your last question, yes he intends to do it again if no punishment is inflicted. Do you think jail time is deserved in this case?

That said, remember that the source of the golden rule is justice. As such, if we can judge straight from justice, then we don't need to rely on the golden rule; although they would not contradict. And a just punishment is one that restores justice and prevents injustice from occurring again. So if the judges agree about the facts, then they will necessarily agree on the just punishment. — Samuel Lacrampe

And I claim that the judges wont necessarily agree on what punishment should be deserved via Golden rule becuase they can differ on what they think is a deserved punishment via Golden rule.

Religious claims. E.g., if Christianity is true, then its claim that fornication is immoral is true, even if not unjust. But don't misunderstand; I am not here claiming that Christianity is true (that would far exceed the scope of this discussion); I am merely giving you a candidate criteria that goes beyond justice. — Samuel Lacrampe

In the hypothetical scenario that all religion is proven to be made up: One person does think premarital sex is okay via Golden rule. Another person is conditioned by parents and culture to believe premarital sex is wrong and unjust via Golden rule. Both of them are atheist. Is premarital sex immoral or not in this case? And what criteria are are you using to determine that?

Also another point - If some sect Christianity were to be true, all of its claims of morality would be right. This wouldn't make its moral claims an extra criteria for determining morality, this would make it the only criteria. Justice via Golden rule would be completely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if everything thought that killing homosexuals is too cruel. If the sect of Christianity claimed that is the moral thing to do, it would be the moral thing to do. Or else the sect of Christianity wouldn't be true.

And I'll throw in another example. A collectivist thinks that if the father tells the son to become something, the son should do that. They think it is immoral to go against parents' word, and that the son has an obligation to his family that raised him. A more independent culture on the other hand thinks parents shouldn't impose on their kids to tell them what to become. They think that would be immoral. So which culture do you think is immoral and what criteria are you using to determine that?

If the golden rule criteria is met, then the disagreement must be about facts about the event, or else about the purpose of a punishment. As previously stated, the goal of the punishment is to pay for the harm done, if any, and then to prevent the defendant from doing the crime again. The first goal restores justice, and the second goal prevents further injustice or harm to oneself. If the judges agree on the goals and the facts that meet those goals, then I see no other reasons for a disagreement. — Samuel Lacrampe

I feel as though you did not address the example I gave. Person A thinks the drug addict does not deserve to go to prison via Golden rule. Person B thinks the drug addict does deserve to go to prison via Golden rule. This is not a disagreement about facts about the event, or about the purpose of a punishment. It is a disagreement about what is just via Golden rule.

For criteria other than justice in the case of sex. I can only think of religious reasons at the moment, like Christianity that commands against adultery. — Samuel Lacrampe

Why is something that is not unjust considered immoral just because a religion commands against it? Are you saying the criteria of whether Christianity deems something as moral or not is sufficient?

Also, you never answered my question which was: if one person considers premarital sex as just via golden rule, and the other considers it unjust via Golden rule - how do you determine whether it is moral or immoral?

Human justice and the golden rule are indeed relative to human values. But aside from subjective tastes, all men have the same values. E.g., we all want respect, honesty and health. The exception to this rule seems to be sex; which moral judgement seems to come from religion. But that is an exception rather than the rule. I honestly don't think we can find another exception. — Samuel Lacrampe

We shall see. I'd like to see if you can address the example above first before moving on to others.

No, because this does not fit the case about sexual acts which may be deemed immoral even if the person committing it passes the golden rule. — Samuel Lacrampe

I still don't understand how you can determine something to be not unjust yet immoral. If you are saying it is not unjust, what criteria are you using to determine that it is immoral?

If not, then what punishment can be done with the end to prevent the defendant from doing the crime again? If it can be done with a mere warning, then so be it. If not, then the punishment would be raised so as to meet that end. At the extreme, if a criminal keeps escaping from prison and killing everyone, then the capital punishment may be adequate at that point. — Samuel Lacrampe

There are people who believe that if someone intentionally goes out of their way to do drugs while not harming anyone, the person deserves to go to prison. And there are also people who think prison exceeds the crime. How do you reconcile these two opposing views?

How can you say one is more objectively right than the other when people of both opposing views see their own view as just via Golden rule?

Not 'unjust'; 'immoral'. As defined in the OP, 'justice' is objective; and even when it comes to sex, justice is easy to determine by applying the golden rule. E.g., if I have premarital sex but am intolerant of my spouse having done it, then I am unjust. — Samuel Lacrampe

Your viewpoint is that if it is unjust, then it must also be immoral. How can you say that it is not unjust but it is immoral?

You would be unjust in that case, but there are also people of an opposing viewpoint who have premarital sex are not intolerant of their spouse having done it, and therefore are not unjust. So how can premarital sex itself be just or unjust? It depends on the viewpoint of the person.

Even in the case of sex, justice is a necessary criteria for morality, even though it is not a sufficient criteria. Note, this does not exclude the possibility that other criteria to determine morality are also objective. But I concede that justice alone is not sufficient in all cases. — Samuel Lacrampe

I agree justice is necessary and that it is not sufficient. That is because justice requires presupposed values. One's Golden rule is based off of their values. The presupposed values are the criteria by which to judge an act as just or unjust. As you've now acknowledged, people can have different values and therefore different different judgements about what is just via Golden rule.

Can we agree to this: If just, then it is not necessarily moral, but if unjust, then it is necessarily immoral. — Samuel Lacrampe

If it is just by one's view and unjust by another's view, how you even then determine if the act is moral or immoral. I don't really understand this.

I think it makes more sense to just say that an action is moral if it is just according to the criteria. The Golden rule is dependent on one's values therefore the presupposed values are the criteria. People have different values therefore the presupposed values will be dependent on an individual. And that is what I believe people mean when they say morality is subjective

Whether or not the criteria is easily found, it does not make it less objective. Would anyone disagree that a 15 y/o is better suited to make this decision, than a 5 y/o? If no one, then the property of "being suited to make this decision" is objective. — Samuel Lacrampe

When judging something, that is dependent on the criteria you are using. The criteria itself is constructed. And my point is that since people differ on the criteria they are using when they use the word morality - they have different values - that is why you can't just say something is objectively morally right. If everyone were to use the Golden rule in a situation, everyone wouldn't always come to the same judgements about what is just or unjust.

The example changed. The original example was about people who got addicted through not fault of theirs. — Samuel Lacrampe

The original example was simply if someone has a drug addiction. You responded with

Going to jail for a drug addiction, especially one that came through not fault of ours, clearly exceeds the "crime". — Samuel Lacrampe

With this statement you are still saying that going to jail for a drug addiction clearly exceeds the crime. And especially (which implies not necessarily) if it is no fault of ours - This part is irrelevant to me anyways, because that changes it to a completely different situation which is not the issue that I had intended for you to address - to clear up this misunderstanding

In this new example, the people intentionally broke the law before becoming addicted. This deserves a punishment of some sort. Note, I am not saying it is easy to separate the sincere from the insincere addicts, but the acts should aim to achieve justice as best as we can. — Samuel Lacrampe

Now here you are saying that going to jail does not exceed the crime, which is inconsistent with what you stated above.

Do you think a person intentionally going out of their way to do drugs and become an addict - do you think jail exceeds that crime or not? In the US many will say it doesn't. In Europe many will say it does. How do you reconcile this?

Yep, you got me there. Sex seems to be a morally grey area. Some call premarital or extramarital sex immoral, others don't; and the act is not necessarily unjust. — Samuel Lacrampe

Exactly. Whether or not it is unjust depends on an individual's views.

Notice however that if the act is unjust, e.g. nonconsensual, then virtually everybody would judge it to be immoral. My point is that, while justice may not be the only criteria for morality, it is nevertheless a necessary criteria. Morality may therefore be more than justice, but not less. — Samuel Lacrampe

My point this whole time has been to say that justice is dependent on presupposed values. In extreme examples like this one, natural inclinations may fully account for what people consider to be just or unjust because other variables might not influence values that are consistent with not wanting to get raped. However, so many other variables like culture, parents, etc. can influence what people consider just in other situations, such as whether premarital sex is immoral or not. People may have the same presupposed values for extreme cases via Golden rule, but that doesn't mean it applies to every case.

Your example points to disagreement on facts: whether a 15 y/o can make such important decisions or not; not a difference of values. It seems if people were to agree on the fact, then they would agree on the moral judgement, as per your reasoning. — Samuel Lacrampe

What is the criteria of whether or not a 15 y/o is old enough to make those decisions? You could look at the facts about brain development in 15 year olds. Some would argue that development is sufficient at 15 while others would say it is not - both views via Golden rule after looking at the same facts.

But they still break the golden rule, even if they don't see it, from not thinking the treatment all the way through. — Samuel Lacrampe

I see your point.

Hey! Don't quote me out of context :wink: . — Samuel Lacrampe

Couldn't resist quoting you there. Sorry, lmao!

While it is possible out of duty to accept a punishment that fits the crime, no one would accept a punishment that exceeds the crime, even out of duty. Going to jail for stealing may fit the crime. Going to jail for a drug addiction, especially one that came through not fault of ours, clearly exceeds the "crime". — Samuel Lacrampe

Sure, but my point is that people don't always agree on a punishment for a crime. Where I'm losing you is that you are suggesting everyone agrees that for a crime, a certain punishment is acceptable via Golden rule because of natural inclinations. And everyone agrees that any more severe punishment exceeds the crime. Do you really believe that there are not differences between individuals and cultures of what they think fits a crime via Golden rule? We will just have to break down specific examples to get to the bottom of this.

As described above, person B has not found true justice because that treatment breaks the golden rule. — Samuel Lacrampe

I don't see why it breaks the Golden rule. In the case of going out of your way to get drugs without coercion, then become addicted - many people would say that is immoral. While others disagree.

By "sex outside of marriage", do you mean "extramarital sex"? I am fairly sure that nobody wants to be cheated on, and as such, this act clearly breaks the golden rule. — Samuel Lacrampe

I meant sex without getting married, like virgin till marriage

While I agree that this behaviour is frowned upon and illegal in some places, I think the reason is not really a moral one. Instead, I think it is either because it is thought that people younger than 18 are not old enough to make such important decisions, inasmuch as it is not permitted to quit school before a certain age, or it could be because of health concerns. — Samuel Lacrampe

Why is it not a moral one? Some would say the 30 year old is being immoral because they're doing something with someone not old enough to make such important decisions. While others disagree and think they are old enough so the 30 year old is not immoral. This is the difference of values that I've speaking of.

The difference between the hands-chopped-off case and the jail case is that some people may willingly go to jail out of a "change of heart" or sense of duty, but no one can willingly accept getting their hands chopped off out of duty. — Samuel Lacrampe

Fair enough. I admit this example is a little extreme.

Unless I misunderstand you, it sounds like you agree, that on the basis of the golden rule, the jail decision is a mistake, while the rehabilitation decision is the correct one. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant is that yes, the law makers might change their minds when they are actually in that situation. But majority of them won't ever end up in that situation. So in their minds they may have no problem with truly believing that they should go to prison should they become drug addicts because they think the addicts are bad people and that they'll never end up as one.

Also, it's even possible that if the law makers do become drug addicts, they may

may willingly go to jail out of a "change of heart" or sense of duty — Samuel Lacrampe

while others want rehabilitation.

Those different values you speak of, called subjective, are secondary to the values all men have in common, called objective. Subjective values are tastes, such as different art styles, music, fashion and food. Objective values are (1) physical values; e.g., we all seek health and avoid diseases; and (2) moral values; e.g., we all seek to be treated as equal and not lesser individuals. Now objective values are primary to subjective values because we want clothes before fashion, food before taste, and equality before any subjective tastes. Based on those primary objective values, we can achieve one universal justice system (which, mind you, should allow room for secondary subjective differences). — Samuel Lacrampe

This downplays the complexity of cognition that humans have. We are much more sophisticated than the way you described. Yes we all have natural inclinations, but we still have differing values that are relevant for morality. Person A thinks justice for drug addicts is rehabilitation. Person B truly thinks it is wrong and they should go to prison for sense of duty. Do you not think this is possible?

Some people think having sex outside of marriage for everyone is immoral. Some people think it's okay to have as much consensual sex as you want.

That seems correct. If somehow our natural inclinations were to fluctuate back and forth, say from food to starvation, from health to sickness, and from pleasure to pain, then justice would be impossible in practice. We conclude that an achievable justice implies a common and unchanging human nature. — Samuel Lacrampe

Morality is a word we use to characterize acts based on presupposed values. These natural inclinations you speak of are some presupposed values. For basic things like murder, yes most people in the world will have similar values - most will be against murder because they value life which is a natural inclination. Yet there are huge differences in values across people. Some think it is immoral for a 30 year old to get involved with younger than 18 year old. Yet in other cultures, they truly think it's acceptable for a 15 year old to be with a 30 year old.

If there was a set definition for morality with set presupposed values that somehow apply to everyone, then we could say things are moral or immoral based off of that criteria. However we don't see that because people value different things and use different presupposed values when using the word moral or immoral.

I contemplate whether vegan ethics, or any actions in general, go beyond being labeled as moral because we like it/value it.

Can I have a clear conscience eating meat? The concept of eating meat does not bother me. It is the way it is done that I do not like. The way the animals are raised and suffer is troubling. The animals are also depersonalized to me. Obviously I value my pets much more than stranger animals. If I had to actually watch the animals get raised and see the suffering, let alone be the one to kill, then my opinions might be completely different. However there's also the possibility that I become desensitized to it, especially if I was doing it from a young age.

When I go to the store and eat meat, this is not something that crosses my mind. It is normalized in society. When I take the time to think about it though, I know what is going on. However, I rationalize it because I know that if I don't eat the meat, it'll either go bad and be thrown out, or someone else is gonna eat it anyways. Realistically, if I stop eating meat the food industry isn't gonna produce less.

I primarily eat seafood, only other meats sometimes when I'm out and there's not as many options available (America is big on meat). I like to think that the different conditions for seafood means the animals probably don't suffer the way cows, pigs, etc. do because of their conditions. Although I acknowledge I don't really know the details about this.

People cannot honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off unless they agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation. And I am fairly sure that no one in history has ever willingly got their hand chopped off. — Samuel Lacrampe

People can honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off and agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation, until they are in that situation. Similarly, one can think it is moral for thieves to go behind bars and that one should themselves be put behind bars should they become a thief, yet when actually in that situation, not willingly want to go behind bars.

I understand that this is an extreme example, but it is entirely possible that historic civilizations really were like this.

Drug addict example: Should drug addicts go to jail, or get rehabilitated? Well, if the law makers were drug addicts, and through not fault of theirs (which can happen), then surely they would want to get rehabilitated, and not go to jail. As such, only rehabilitation passes the Golden Rule, and is therefore just. — Samuel Lacrampe

If the law makers aren't drug addicts, it's entirely possible that because of their values they truly believe drug addicts deserve to go to jail, including themselves, while at the same time believing they will never end up that way. And if they do at some point become a drug addict, they may then change their minds and find that rehabilitation makes more sense.

What about the Golden Rule: do onto others as you want them to do onto you? This practical rule is objective, and is derived directly from the concept of justice as defined in the OP — Samuel Lacrampe

Even if we have disagreements about the specific examples above, surely you must still acknowledge that individual people, and even more so different cultures, have different values. Natural inclinations are a huge factor of course, however people and cultures can come to different conclusions about what is justice because they have different wants. And they do all the time in the real world. What is justice will then vary between individuals and probably more so between cultures.

Also, even if theoretically everyone had the same wants and values, and miraculously somehow all were in agreement about how justice should be served, their justice would then still be dependent on their wants and values by your own definition of the Golden Rule.

You could say that the punishment clearly exceeds the crime by our standards today, however I don't think you have a basis for saying that majority of people in a culture can't exist that honestly believes that thieves truly do deserve to get their hand chopped off (that it doesn't exceed the degree crime). Such cultures may have been existing throughout history. With your logic, you could argue that about any type punishment. One could say that maybe prison sentences may be too much of a punishment for thieves also, or disagree about how long (2 years vs. 10 years in prison). Of course in the real world, every individual in a culture won't necessarily agree, which brings me to my next point...

The point of my comment was to talk about how people have different values. Individuals have different values, and to a greater extent societies have different values. Those values are what any justice or morality is dependent on. Values come from both biology and culture. How should a drug addict be punished? Some may think it's immoral to put them in prison and rather they should be only rehabilitated (some countries in Europe). Others may think drug addicts deserve 1 year, 5 years, 15 years in prison (the US). Some may go as far as saying they truly deserve the death penalty. An argument could be made that a democracy allows the greatest amount of peoples' values in consideration when making laws.

With presupposed values, something can be objectively more moral than something else. However, there is no objective standard for presupposed values that we are aware of that transcends human thought. Individuals and cultures disagree about what is moral. Natural inclinations are not the only thing that results in values. If that were true, everyone would have the same values, however we don't see that because of differing cultural effects or even just the parents one has. And I believe the differing values is what people mean when they say morality is subjective.

Let's say we have culture A and culture B that don't interact with each other. Both cultures value different things.

In culture A, if you steal, you get your hand chopped off. This happens to everyone in this society. And people truly believe that anyone who steals truly does deserve to get their hand chopped off, including themselves if they were the thief.

In culture B, if you steal, you get sent to prison. This happens to everyone in this society. And people truly believe that anyone who steals truly does deserve to go to prison, including themselves if they were the thief. Yet, people in culture B don't think that a thief deserves to get their hand chopped off and find it too cruel.

Wouldn't both of these cultures be acting just?

It's strange because on one hand I really wish institutions like this weren't a thing, but at the same time I don't want to ban them. I want people to lawfully be able to preach religion, but I don't want the people to preach it. I think the government should play a more active role to prevent that fucked up molesting shit in these institutions.

I'm against indoctrinating children in general. I think it's messed up that you can brainwash a kid into having a world view about the ultimate truth, one that isn't demonstrated and can cause traumatizing emotional fear for the rest of their life if they try to escape it. They should be able to decide for themselves when they get older. But of course I know I can't tell parents how to raise their children on this issue.

Regardless even if I did want to ban faith schools and public religion, I think the emotional reaction and divisiveness that would probably arise shuts down any practicality in that. There is no way that's gonna happen anytime soon.

Interesting post. I think that you are acting in self-interest. It is your interest to make your family happy/to get satisfaction from making your family happy.

Whether an act is selfish or selfless depends on motivations. If you cooked for them only because you know they'll then do something for you and that's want you want, in that case you would be selfish. In this case you cook because you genuinely care about them, so that makes make you selfless. And in either of those cases, selfish or selfless, you would be acting in self-interest.

This may not be proper usage of the words if you get really technical, I'm not really sure. But this is how I like to look at it.

Oh okay I agree with you then. Under the right circumstances, people in a society will choose anything that suits their interests. If you were to even say that people can decide to support tyranny under the right circumstances, I still wouldn't call you an irrational fascist.

A lot of those circumstances however may be theoretical rather than practical. Like for example I can't think of a practical set of circumstances why choosing a dictator would suit the best interests of America. Doesn't seem like circumstances like that will ever arise, but then again we may never know. I thought you were saying that under the circumstances we have right now, faith schools should be banned. I'm not sure a case for banning faith schools will arise that will suit people's interests, but we will see.

It is possible that my dick fell off in the shower this morning, too. — Buxtebuddha

chill lol

Good, then we're on the same page, my friend. — Thorongil

However it is prejudice. And sometimes people use the words interchangeably when it comes to a person's nationality. Criticizing someone who says that it's racist just because it's not "technically" racist is just being nitpicky.

Hey now, I never called you such childish names! — Thorongil

If you see the context that I did that in, I justified it using your own words of telling me to get over it. It was to show why that justification is insensitive. And since you agree, now we can both go back to being respectful.

We can only encourage critical thinking, and hopefully over time, people will become less religious. Although you say that the need to teach critical thinking rules out the possibility of allowing certain classes of faith school, you do acknowledge that banning public religious practices would probably lead to worse consequences than allowing them.

I don't share the same values. I don't want to live in a society that bans public religious practices. Regardless, why would you still support that, even with your values, when you think there would probably be worse consequences?

Ah, notice the change in vocabulary! I agree that he used offensive language. However, what he said wasn't racist. — Thorongil

I never said it was racist. It is prejudiced if you assume he knew it is offensive to people. Most people know this, so I think it's reasonable to make the assumption that the president of the United States, who deals with other countries all the time, would know this. Unless you want to be very generous and assume that he didn't know, in which case he'd be a careless jackass at best.

Lol! Okay, pal. Talk about pot calling the kettle black! — Thorongil

How about we both show respect rather than tell people to just get over it?

Maybe not with that tone, but I have no problem with the general idea. Sport is a meritocracy. — Thorongil

Did you completely miss the point of what I was saying? It's not the idea itself that is bad. But the tone has a hint of prejudice. So I don't know why you're trying to explain why the idea itself isn't bad when i never said it was.

You are assuming that was his intent or the intent of anyone who, with less coarseness of language, points out the fact in question. Sometimes the truth stings. Get over it, I say. — Thorongil

First of all you have to be really dumb to think that by calling the countries shitholes, it is not offensive. Second, I didn't assume that was his intent. I clearly stated if he's really that dumb that he doesn't realize it, then he's a careless jackass at best. How did you completely miss this point as well?

You tell me to get over it? really lol. Now you're being insensitive. You are actually just really stupid because you completely missed the points in this post. But no, I'm not a careless jackass because I'm just pointing out a fact. Sometimes the truth stings. Get over it, I say.

I think people need to stop shooting from the hip with charges of racism and do a little bit more introspection. It was sheer comic absurdity seeing those reporters ask Trump, "Are you a wacist?! This is a serious question!" If it was, I notice that no one in the room seemed to care, the majority of whom were black. — Thorongil

First of all I don't agree we should reject Haitians. But even if we decide we should, there's still a problem.

If you are a coach for an athletic team and a person who is overweight wants to play. When you talk with other coaches, you might say it's not a good idea to have overweight people because it hurts our chances of winning. But if you say "why should we have fat fucks on this team?" do you not sense some sort of prejudice in that statement? Is it okay to say that because they actually are overweight?

The country people are from is a huge part of their identity. Yes many of these countries are struggling. No one is claiming when trump says Haiti is a shithole, that Haiti is actually doing great economically. The point is that it's belligerently disrespectful to generalize a bunch of countries and call them shitholes.

The country of my ethnicity isn't the best economically. It's one thing for trump to say he doesn't want people from there because the country isn't well-to-do enough that they may not help our economy. It's another thing to call that country a shithole. I'm not sure if you identify with any of these "shithole countries", but maybe if you don't and you did instead, you'd understand why many people find that statement really fucked up.

It doesn't even matter if you only meant to insult the economic and political conditions of the country. You belligerently insulted the identities of millions of people. At best that would make you a careless jackass.

I agree beliefs in religion have their consequences, but I don't think banning public religious practices is gonna lead to any positive outcome. Nor do I want to live in a society where people aren't allowed to preach irrational beliefs. The consequences for that could be more polarized religion and divisiveness. I think we should combat this with encouraging critical thinking, and do think society can change over time. Many other countries are becoming increasingly secular, and the US might also follow.

I thought you had said free expression rather than legal expression as if implying religious ideals should be allowed to be expressed even when they are promoting terrorism. But yeah, I'm not saying that I'm trying to put limits on the legal expression of religious belief.

It depends on context. Consider this hypothetical example. If ISIS opens up a school in America, people allow their kids to go from like age 2. The kids are taught ISIS ideals. We end up with thousands of people going around killing people. The teachers of the school itself aren't killing, but the children that go to the school grow up and start killing in this situation. Do we just keep locking up the murderers that grow in population and never end? Or do we also ban the expression of ideals of the school because it is indoctrinating children from a young age to become murderers, which is a huge threat to our safety.

There is a big difference between tolerating ISIS's religion and tolerating their behavior. — T Clark

I may have worded it strangely, but I mean we should be allowed to criticize the doctrines themselves, criticize people's interpretations of the doctrines, and not allow people to behave in the ways ISIS does.

If you read Pseudonym's last comment, I think there was just more of a misunderstanding going on.

I think the only place we might disagree is that I do have quite strong views about religious education and would certainly consider that act of banning faith schools as within what I consider reasonable moral grounds for enforcing what religious activity we should 'allow', but imposing on someone's private practices would for example, be an immoral imposition on autonomy. — Pseudonym

My parents believe in god. They are fine with my brother being gay. They are fine with separation of church. They prefer separation of church and state. They are fine with secularism. In fact they have encouraged me to become atheist in a society where it is looked down upon, after listening to my reasons.

Now this is a huge hypothetical (they don't care for preaching), but should they be allowed to preach if they wanted to? Would you say that they should not be able to have schools where, if people choose to, they come to learn because they are interested in their type of religious belief?

I think we have to consider what the faith school is teaching. If it is ISIS preaching then of course we ban it. But does the degree of belief and it's specific consequences matter? It seems as though the case I am talking about is only harmful in that it encourages forming a world view that may not be rational. And we may also have conversations about how far a belief can go before it is banned. But do you think all faith based schools should be banned?

Anyway, I agree with your position that we should be allowed to tell people they are wrong. I am a huge advocate for discouraging religion.

If I thought my posting here really affected the world at large, I might not post. Because I'm not sure what's good for the world at large. It's complex as hell. — dog

You're a dog. It must be very complex.

I read that quote as if Pseudonym is saying we should not allow religion when it's degrees of consequences have reached a point that is intolerable, like say ISIS for example. It is our duty to not allow that. While we should discourage in other cases. That was my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it was not my quote therefore I may be misrepresenting.

If Pseudonym is saying we should be intolerant, then I don't agree with that. But I'll let Pseudonym defend that rather than possibly misrepresent Pseudonym's position.

This is a pretty extraordinary statement. Do you really believe that we should forbid people to believe certain things. If so, how are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out?

The things you are saying make you seem like more of a zealot than any Christian I've met. — T Clark

What makes him different from ISIS? Are you kidding me? He is clearly just vocalizing that we should discourage religion and express our issues with it. It doesn't mean walk door to door telling religious people they are wrong, let alone killing every religious person.

Why shouldn't we be able to express why we think religion is wrong? How are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out?

As I said, I don't understand your usage of terminology. "Physics" refers to a field of study. You claim that you use it to refer to the phenomena studied by that field. The human body is not studied by the field of physics, so your use of terminology is inconsistent to the extent of being very confusing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I told you already multiple times the phenomena we study in biology is the way it is because of the phenomena of biochemistry, which is the way it is because of the phenomena of chemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because the phenomena of physics. Therefore the phenomena of biology is the way it is because of the way the phenomena of physics is.

You're going backwards. My demonstration indicates that direction must be prior to the physical activities which constitute the living body. therefore direction is prior to the existence of the body. — Metaphysician Undercover

This "direction" of the living body you speak of is a direct product of chemistry and physics. Biomolecules work the way they do because of the properties of atoms. Atoms are the way they are because of physics. Does an apple need some sort of metaphysical "direction" before it falls? It falls because of the way physics works. So the only metaphysical "direction" you could try to argue that is necessary would be the direction of physics itself.

That there is formula/direction prior to the existence of the universe would be a conclusion drawn from that assumption, if you were to accept it. Whatever preconceived notions you may have concerning the universe, and spacetime, are irrelevant to the demonstration, but I think you would find that they would prevent you from making that assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that one can't say a formula for the universe existed prior to the universe because that statement itself assumes time before the universe. Therefore the assumption itself is flawed and the conclusion can't be made, just as I think you've mentioned here.

The living human body is a product of physics. The phenomena of physics is the reason the human body is the way it is. So you are essentially saying the phenomena of physics is the way it is because of a metaphysical direction that must have had to come prior, yes?

How could a formula/direction for the universe have existed prior to the universe? You have to assume that there was a time prior to the universe. That has to be demonstrated. How can spacetime exist before spacetime exists?

No I didn't say that DNA gives direction, I said that the physical parts of the living body are directed. DNA is a physical part, and therefore It follows direction. — Metaphysician Undercover

My bad, I misunderstood.

I described this already, maybe you should go back and reread, and ask me if you have any questions about what I said.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you copy and paste the demonstration then? Because I don't see a demonstration anywhere.

You are losing me with your terminology. Let's see if we can straighten some things out. These terms, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physics, all refer to fields of study. Do we agree on this? These fields of study, are the way that they are, because human beings developed them to be this way. Do we agree on that? So if we need to ask why physics is the way that it is, this question is very easily approached with the answer that physics developed in this way because it is the result of human intention. Human intention is the cause of the field of study called "physics" being the way that it is. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

You were talking about how DNA somehow gives direction. So with all the terms, I'm referring to the phenomena itself. Why is the phenomena that we study in biology the way it is? Because the phenomena of physics is the way it is. Why is the phenomena of physics the way it is? We don't know.

You seem to be using "physics" here in a way which I am not familiar with. Physicists create formulas to describe the activities of the physical world. If we want to create formulas to describe what the physicists are doing (physics), then shouldn't we turn to philosophy? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I agree physicists create formulas to describe phenomena. Now it's up to you to demonstrate how we go from our lack of knowledge about why the physics is the way it is, to a metaphysical soul.

Yes, and they perform directed actions. And it is not understood exactly why they perform directed actions. My point is that there is no living body without such directed actions, so the formula which directs is prior to the body. — Metaphysician Undercover

The way biology is the way it is is because of complex biochemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because of the underlying physics. If you're gonna make this argument, you have to go further at a fundamental level and then ask why physics is the way it is, which is what I think you are essentially doing.

My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option. — Metaphysician Undercover

immaterial soul, and this is necessary to properly understand reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very bold claims.

I don't quite understand your question. Aren't all formulae immaterial, and doesn't physics use formulae? — Metaphysician Undercover

We create formulas to describe physics. Science creates models to describe the universe. Why is physics the way it is? We don't know. But to leap frog from we don't know to assert there is a metaphysical soul, you have a lot of demonstrating to do.

I think quantum mechanics demonstrates that there is an immaterial force behind the way atoms work. Do you understand Pauli exclusion? The concept of "force" is quite useful in physics, and despite assumptions that forces may be accounted for with material particles this approach, is enveloped in uncertainty. Uncertainty indicates flawed principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe doesn't act in a way that makes sense to humans as we understand the universe today. Why? Because as far as we know, we have no reason to think the universe has an obligation to make sense to us. And we didn't evolve where it was necessary to understand quantum mechanics.

The particle-waves are confusing and we don't understand them. Our model of uncertainty does not mean flawed. Flawed as opposed to what? You haven't demonstrated that it is possible for a universe to exist without uncertainty, maybe this is the only way and therefore unflawed. It just means that things seem to act differently at a fundamental level than at a more macroscopic level where it seems to us certain. Asserting that there has to be some metaphysical force to explain uncertainty just because it seems spooky and odd to humans is like saying I can't explain why A is the way it is, so it must be because of B.

No I don't see it that way.

If in the future society gets to a point where people don't hold beliefs without empirical evidence like ghosts, gods, horoscopes, etc. at all, then maybe it will be. In that society, people will see someone who is going out of their way praying, and they won't be able to understand what's going on. They might think something is wrong with the person and consider mental illness.

Don't know if society will ever get to that point. Right now though, I don't think it's fair to look at theism as a mental illness.

I don't know if you're trolling but I'm done with this conversation lol

Yes, as in Natural Selection — Rich

Natural selection is a term used to describe what is happening during evolution in the physical world. Science describes what is happening in the physical world. For me to say that an apple falls is not a metaphysical claim. Describing the physical world is not a metaphysical claim.

Muscle as some kind of memory? It's it natural?

It's not that I don't understand biology. It is just I am amused by how well they indoctrinated you. — Rich

You clearly don't understand biology, evidently by trying to mislead with that article that you thought somehow went against our modern understanding of biology when it doesn't. If you're gonna make bold claims about science, at least make sure you even understand the science.

Science develops models that are based off of evidence, that describe the physical world rather than make metaphysical claims. Nothing in science is even set in stone. When we say this is what science says, we are saying this is the best model we have to best of our ability of understanding the universe. That is an assumption of honest scientists. While you accuse science of being a religion and yet believe in some metaphysical mind that you can't even demonstrate.

Yeah, but it is the Imperative party that is so important to science, because the need a placeholder for Mind when the brain isn't there. So problem, they just make up a new word - and if course teach it as science. — Rich

It is a word to describe a phenomena. Really how do you not understand? If I say red apple to describe what I'm eating, is that a metaphysical claim? What nonsense.

If you choose to avoid the word Mind, no skin off my teeth. We all make our choices in life, don't we? — Rich

I'm not trying to force science down your throat. I just think it's ridiculous that you will quote me while I'm replying to someone else, tell me science is nonsense, and then claim you know somehow know of this metaphysical mind that you can't even demonstrate.

It's as metaphysical as mind. — Rich

Natural is not metaphysical whatsoever, Natural is a word used to describe what happens without human manipulation.

nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

It is the phenomena. Do you reject the phenomena? Do you reject that if you jump off a cliff you'd fall? No you wouldn't. So stop being a hypocrite and trying to reject the word natural. It's only a description of what happens, it is the phenomena, not a metaphysical explanation for why the phenomena is what it is.

I actually think I misinterpreted what you meant by mind-gut earlier. I thought you were referring to the gut as in the stomach so I was talking about that as opposed to a "gut-feeling". I don't know which one you were talking about but it doesn't really matter.

procedurally learning (by a muscle???), — Rich

I think this shows how poorly you understand biology. Muscle memory isn't some type of memory that your muscle just does by itself as if it has a mind of it's own like you think. Your brain has learned to do something with repetition so is able to manipulate your muscles (which are also now better suited to doing the task for biochemical reasons) much easier. In a sense the signals are more efficient, similar to when you can remember something better when you've repeated it multiple times. Memory neural connections are observable.

Thermodynamic Impressive never used by science. — Rich

I've never seen the word imperative seen next to thermodynamics in a science context, but anyway thermodynamics is itself demonstrable. The four laws of thermodynamics are well established model for a reason. And there hasn't been evidence that contradicts them.

The reason scientists don't use the word mind is because the they choose not to. Nothing is determined. — Rich

You are the king of repeating the same thing over and over again and without demonstrating it. Stop making baseless claims. The only thing you've said is that science denies the mind. Just demonstrate this metaphysical mind already, stop being dishonest.

Of course it has. It is what is peering out the eyes. — Rich

How does the fact that I'm able to see demonstrate that there is some metaphysical mind beyond the brain? That's nonsense. Natural is not metaphysical, it is just a word to describe what happens without human manipulation. I even gave you the definition. And I'm pretty sure the thermodynamic imperative is a metaphysical claim philosophers have used. Never have I seen it in a science context. Science doesn't make metaphysical claims it can't prove. Scientists may, but they aren't doing science when they do.

The word brain is used as a substitute for Mind except where things happen outside of the brain in which case we have mind-gut, muscle memory, and if course the universal place holder "natural". — Rich

The word brain refers to the organ in your head. Of course it doesn't refer the gut. That's because your gut is your gut. Your gut does what it does for it's own biochemical reasons. Maybe if you actually study some biology before making these outrageous claims it'd make more sense. And in fact the brain even does have influence on the gut by sending electrochemical signals and hormones. Muscle memory is a type of procedural learning that is not separate from the brain nor does anyone claim that it is.

The only metaphysical bias of science is that the metaphysical mind has not been demonstrated. That is not the same thing as claiming there is no metaphysical mind. Science isn't making metaphysical claims, or saying determinism is true. People may use science to support their metaphysical belief of determinism, but science itself doesn't make metaphysical claims of determinism.

Science uses the word brain to describe the brain. That is different than the autonomic nervous system. Now are you suggesting the autonomic nervous system requires a metaphysical mind? I find it ironic how you claim that science is like a religion making nonsensical assertions, yet it is in fact you rather than science who are making metaphysical assertions, and still have failed to demonstrate any of it.