Okay, now you're saying something more sensible. So let's work with this. There's this natural drive to be moral. How come this natural drive to be moral rarely wins over the other drives? — Agustino
Second, okay - if I grant you that the immoral act of lying is learned, then why the hell do people lie so much? Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. For example: — Agustino
Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. — Agustino
You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.
Okay.About me being a Stoic. — WhiskeyWhiskers
I think Stoicism is right, and our common way of dealing with such things by wailing and crying is irrational - although indeed human.I did appreciate them once but I find it alienating from what it means to be human - like the way it deals with losing loved ones and the way it (unintentionally) undermines genuine, deeply felt human relationships. — WhiskeyWhiskers
I suggest you just take a look at a history book, and repeat this with a straight face if you can. I'm sure you won't be able to. Morality won here - clearly *facepalm* :You're wrong here. Human beings are moral beings, so the natural drive to be moral mostly wins over the drive to be immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is your rationalistic explanation. I am judging by how this adheres with the facts. If it is natural for humans to be honest, then I would expect lying to be a rarity - but it's not - it's quite frequent actually.But this can't be true because the tendency to be honest which is a moral virtue, is what underlies, and is necessary for communication. Since the ability to communicate relies on this tendency toward honesty, then lying must be something learned after the ability to communicate is learned. We learn how to communicate, then we learn how to lie. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, because they disagree with you.The statistics are irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right. Time for a biology lesson son.simple seeing a naked person is not, in itself sufficient to explain lust. — Cavacava
Yes, the article isn't the biology lesson, I meant you should study biology, to see that the brain automatically releases certain chemicals upon certain sights - including in the case of seeing a naked woman.That article is isn't germane or explicative of lust :s , it is in fact mind numbing. — Cavacava
The article however does illustrate that lust is so prevalent, it can be taken as the natural condition of mankind. To depart from the natural condition takes effort and education. — Agustino
You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.
I don't care if it's a learned response or not. Of course everything you do is to some extent learned. That's irrelevant. But some things are "natural". This may be hard to describe what it means. But basically it's what is there for most people. The behaviours/tendencies that are common.lust is not a learned response — Cavacava
What you're saying is so utterly absurd that it should be rejected out of hand, as blatant nonsense. A cursory glance at history is sufficient to convince anyone. Mankind is marked by brutality and viciousness - periods of peace and prosperity are relatively rare. — Agustino
This is your rationalistic explanation. I am judging by how this adheres with the facts. If it is natural for humans to be honest, then I would expect lying to be a rarity - but it's not - it's quite frequent actually. — Agustino
Yeah, because they disagree with you. — Agustino
James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said, and some of the things he said just weren’t true.
Oath or no oath makes no difference to the practised liar. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, but you should show evidence that human beings are moral. So far, you've provided nothing but empty speculation.So what? Do I have to point out to you every time that a human being acts morally in order to argue that human beings are moral beings? — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, if you take a stroll down a city street you'll see very few moral acts, and a lot of immoral ones. Whether these are petty immoralities - such cursing a beggar, or bad-mouthing someone - or bigger immoralities such as punching someone in the face. The vast majority of what you'll see though will be neither moral nor immoral behaviour - just people moving around.Take a stroll down a city street and compare how many people are acting morally with how many are acting immorally. Even in a war torn country you'll fid that morality far out weighs immorality. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it's ridiculous to think communication is unnatural - that's what's ridiculous. If I stop a random man in the street and tell him communication is unnatural he'll laugh in my face. But it seems apparent you have no problem with holding such a dumb idea. As I told you before, you often remind me of the armchair philosopher, who has little experience with the world.So, if you would not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in lying, because lying is unnatural, you would also not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in communication, because communication is unnatural. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, it my not prove that lying is natural, but it sure as hell does prove that human beings are immoral in their natural state.The statistics are irrelevant, because even if the statisticians claim that one hundred percent of the people lie, this does not prove that lying is natural. — Metaphysician Undercover
The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.