Brains are insufficient for morals. Worms have brains. Worms have no morals.

Emotion is insufficient for morals. Dogs have emotions. Dogs have no morals.

That which is insufficient for morals cannot possibly the source of morals. — creativesoul

:lol:

Worms and dogs aren't moral agents. Their brains aren't advanced enough.

I would pay a sizeable sum to see a few "elites" confined to a forum of their very own. :wink:

Astute observation my friend~ It has a PB feeling to it~ :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thank you, Tiff. Just don't tell anyone about my compassionate side, as it will fuck up my hardball persona. :victory:

The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality.
— tim wood

That's daft and doesn't really make sense. If the level of insight into their own condition is impaired by their addiction, then how does that make them culpable for the alleged immorality they are going about doing with their lives? — Wallows

Hear, hear. What an appalling and ignorant thing to say. An addict needs help, not condemnation. They've become a victim to their addiction, which would be corrupting them and causing them distress.

And what does this have to do with the source of morals, besides nothing? — Merkwurdichliebe

It was my way of signalling that you (and praxis) were speaking as though you had forgotten my earlier contributions, and one in particular, top of page 9.

I approached the topic from the angle of neurobiology. It can explain a heck of a lot about emotion
— S

Such as? — praxis

Why don't they present evidence from neurobiology like I done did? — Merkwurdichliebe

And yet, sitting there, top of page 9:

Amygdala

The amygdalas are two almond-shaped masses of neurons on either side of the thalamus at the lower end of the hippocampus. When it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression. And if the amygdala is removed, animals get very tame and no longer respond to things that would have caused rage before. But there is more to it than just anger: When removed, animals also become indifferent to stimuli that would have otherwise have caused fear and even sexual responses.

That's only one example, and brief, but there is of course the entire internet at your disposal, so...

You aren't a neurobiologist. — Merkwurdichliebe

Correct. I'm a serial killer.

It means both? — tim wood

It means either, depending on circumstance.

In sum, he went so far as to agree that the immorality of taking illegal drugs "depends." He didn't say on what. — tim wood

You didn't ask. That's why it was a problematic question. It depends on a whole bunch of factors to the point that it's rash to even make a judgement without knowing the full details of a particular case. The question should be, "Is this particular case immoral?", but for that we'd need to know more, so my response would be, "Tell me as much as possible about it".

Which means yes, except for exceptions. — tim wood

It also means no, except for exceptions.

You wrote, "your god nonsense is not on the same level."

God is not a god or any god, these are different and incompatible terms. In Richard Dawkins' God is Too Complex to Exist, Dick is not talking about a god or any god. Is Thor too complex to exist? Of course not.

I'm really surprised in just the last couple of weeks I've been a part of this community the argument is over whether or not "gods" exist. — Daniel Cox

I don't care.

Why don't they present evidence from neurobiology like I done did? — Merkwurdichliebe

Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage or disease. Amnesia can also be caused temporarily by the use of various sedatives and hypnotic drugs. The memory can be either wholly or partially lost due to the extent of damage that was caused.

You have a problem answering simple questions? I personally believe you know perfectly well there is an immoral component to taking illegal drugs, but acknowledging that would present you a problem you do not care to deal with. It's called denial, and that you'd go to the trouble in this forum is itself interesting. Why do we not suspend this, so you can work on that. — tim wood

Obviously by "simple question", I don't mean easily answerable without a problem, which is what you seem to be deliberately suggesting, in spite of my prior clarification. I mean a question with a simplistic structure which suggests ignorance of the complexity of the issue.

You want a simple answer to the simple question? Okay. The answer is: it depends.

Well, trying to reduce the whole issue to a matter of taste or preference really isn't going to fly in tim wood's mind. As to why this hasn't been pointed out already baffles me. — Wallows

Yes, you're most likely right, because he doesn't think outside of the box. I know he doesn't like me saying things like that, but it's true. He's a very conventional thinker.

I agree that many, many questions about drug use legal or illegal are not simple. I am also mostly incompetent to comment on most of those questions. Those I leave to you. But the question of the OP is not such a question. And we're not going anywhere until you can see that - that it, at least, is a simple question. — tim wood

Of course I recognise that it's a simple question. That's the problem!

Well, my second living deals with synthesizing and distributing novel research chemicals from China to the world, so I'm not sure why this would give me any authority on the matter of assessing the merits of taking XYZ drug as does your non-facetious claim that you have memorized a great deal of info on the effects drugs have. — Wallows

You misunderstood my point. I mentioned that because being well-informed clearly relates to responsibility. That's not unique to drug taking, that's true in general.

Only a mum! But if you harmed her, would that be a bad thing, even arising, depending on the why you harmed her, to the immoral? — tim wood

Can you ask a better question? One that isn't so simplistic and unspecific? This isn't a simple matter. When is that going to sink in?

Every single time I have heard that said, it was in a circumstance where the speaker had gone to the trouble of making his business the business of other people. One example will suffice, and will illustrate all: the man beating the woman. Know what he said? You'll never guess. I'll simplify it and clean it up. "Mind your own business." Is that your none of your business? — tim wood

No, it will certainly not suffice. Bad arguments never suffice. And inappropriate comparisons make for bad arguments, whether you like hearing that or not. I think this is a guilt by association fallacy, actually.

And you keep attributing to me an extremity of view I am not representing here. The question of the OP goes to in a sense the existence of the immorality in question. Is it? Or isn't it? You appear completely deaf to this question. Try the question I just asked Wallow just above - I'm betting you're clever enough to find it. Of course experience tells me you won't touch it with a ten foot pole. — tim wood

But you're one of those annoying people who asks a simpleminded black-and-white question, which is itself a problem, and then complains when I don't give a simpleminded black-and-white answer, but instead highlight the problem in the question. You set me up for failure. Why don't you ask a more intelligent question? A question that conveys an understanding of the complexity of the subject?

Yeah, yeah. I'm an ignorant troll blah blah, because you can't take my criticism.

Lol, then be facetious. Ain't none of my business what you take to get you through the day or night.

Anyway, if one assumes such a nonchalant attitude towards drugs, then all I can say is so be it. — Wallows

I wasn't being facetious. I was indicating the lack of a filter in these simplistic comments about drugs, including your own comments. There are serious health risks with any drug, including paracetamol. And there are serious health risks in many activities, including crossing the road and going up a ladder. So there's danger almost everywhere you look. So saying that some drugs are dangerous isn't saying much, and actually, as I said, and as a matter of fact, all drugs are dangerous.

But yeah, whether I'm nonchalant about it or not, it's my decision.

Haha, I can't tell that. It's just a forum and I can't surmise what or who you may be. — Wallows

Okay, well I am intelligent, thoughtful, and well-read, and you really should have picked that up by now. I have read and memorised a lot of information about drugs.

Yeah; but, some (not all) drugs are dangerous and irresponsible to use. So, I can see some merit to his argument about harm reduction. Funny enough, you might like this place called "Bluelight", a forum for drug users, which is all about harm reduction. So, even the most staunch drug users are aware of the fact that drugs can be a bad thing or at least can be harmful to the user if not others related or close to a drug user... — Wallows

No, they're all dangerous. Even paracetamol. Just read the little piece of paper you get in the packet. And so are lots of things. So no drugs, no bowling, no skiing, no dancing, no crossing the road, no using public transport, no anything, basically.

As for my responsibilities, what makes you think that that's even any of your business? If you're trying to be helpful, then fine. I know the risks. You can tell that I'm an intelligent, thoughtful, well-read person. Of course I know the risks. It's my life, my decision. I've been skydiving. I could have ended up dead or paralysed. My mum would have been distraught. But that still doesn't make it immoral. I work in a job that involves health and safety risks, just like virtually every single other job. That doesn't make working immoral. Should we ban sugar? Start a war on emotions?

The double standard needs to be addressed.

Harm reduction? Okay. That's way more sensible than anything that Tim has said. That's much more productive than black-and-white thinking.

Huh? I could've sworn I heard something just now. I think I must've imagined it.

I don't think painting with a wide brush is apt here — Wallows

But that's all he has to go by, and his pallette consists of just black and white. No grey. If it's illegal, it's wrong. If it causes harm, it's bad. If it's a drug, it's bad. If you take them, you're irresponsible. Community! Therefore wrong.

It's like debating a child. Seriously. I remember when I was a child and I had the same sort of naive moral outlook that I'd picked up from the unthinking status quo. I remember being kind of shocked as a school child at my friends who had started to smoke weed, because of the scaremongering and the illegality. Then my eyes were opened.

My goodness. Where to even begin? You're doing that thing where you seem to think that the more you write, the better your argument. If that's what you think, you need a reality check. I'm not going to go over your post from top to bottom. I don't think that I'm the only here who hasn't got the patience for that. But I will point out a few glaring faults:

1. It's wrong to break the law. Why? 'Cause Socrates said so.

2. It's not about harm. Includes harm in his list of reasons why it's wrong.

3. Community! That's it. That's the argument apparently. We're just supposed to assume that the whole community thinks and feels as he does, and that it automatically takes precedence in moral matters.

4. Getting the drugs! (Ignores Janus's criticism, among others).

5. Planning with others! So what? He never completes the thought. He just assumes that it's obviously wrong, like planning a murder or something, instead of, say, planning a picnic.

6. Consequences! Another point which has been dealt with previously. My life, my liberty, my responsibility. Again, just because you're a conservative, that doesn't mean that you're right by default. That's not a valid argument. And you haven't overcome the criticism of your double standard in being anti-drug, yet not anti-extreme sports, for example. Why aren't you anti- anything that has the risk of consequences? Because you're not here to be logical, you're here to push the right-wing anti-drug agenda. That's why. If you won't answer the question, I will.

You bring it out of me. :wink: — Merkwurdichliebe

Frim fram.

Ok, then let me change my judgment, I believe it is a ethical right to murder and rape. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah, that's real believable. Why are you being silly?

Prove it. — Merkwurdichliebe

You just said that you judge murder and rape to be morally wrong, and it's not plausible that you're a robot. That's sufficient evidence.

Electrons and neutrons are very scientific.

But, tables and chairs are certainly more practical. — Merkwurdichliebe

If the question was about the source of the universe, would you object that by bringing up the Big Bang, I'm neglecting the Tudor period?

Then how is it that I can have no emotion concerning murder, and rape, but nevertheless still judge it to be morally wrong. — Merkwurdichliebe

You've already had that emotional moment. You don't need it each time. You've already made the connection.

A non-neurobiological explanation for the source of morals would include historical or societal explanations that go far beyond the scope of neurobiology. — Merkwurdichliebe

They would be secondary explanations, not explanations at a more fundamental level. They would be complimentary. What you're mentioning is a bit like mentioning tables and chairs when others are mentioning neutrons and electrons. You're further from the source.

But if we only discuss it as an effect of neurobiology, we will never adequately understand the source of morals. — Merkwurdichliebe

There's that word again: "adequately". We have to start somewhere, clever clogs. There's no need to have a seizure just because I approached the topic from the angle of neurobiology. It can explain a heck of a lot about emotion, and what's morality without emotion? An empty shell. It wouldn't exist. How could it if we didn't feel anything at all about things like murder or rape?

Nah, you just can’t waste time with dummies and ideologues who can’t listen. — DingoJones

Oh, but I can and I have. Whether or not I should do so is another matter, of course. And you left out those who nitpick and take cheap shots yet act morally superior. Don't forget that one.

And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy? — EnPassant

In full context, yes, certainly. What makes you think that philosophical discourse can't be expressed in crude language? Try thinking outside of the box. Even my crudest expressed philosophy is light-years ahead of your uncritical approach to the subject. Do you think that singling out "bad words" and gasping in disapproval somehow makes you better at philosophy than me?

I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics. — EnPassant

You're confused about how the burden of proof works. I don't have to disprove your assumption that mathematical features of the world came from a mind. That's your burden of proof. Either there's an explanation in physics for how mathematical features of the world came to be, or we don't know. Our current knowledge of the origins of the universe only goes as far as the Big Bang. You'd just be begging the question by assuming that, for example, the three-dimensionality of space came from a mind, and that this mind must be God. That's entirely unwarranted. If you can reasonably demonstrate this, then again, I say get on with it. And appealing to presumed authority is not a valid argument, either, so that won't work. The argument itself must work, and will either stand or fall by its own merits or demerits.

But that does not mean you can place and extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. — EnPassant

It's on the same level as delusion unless you can distinguish it. If you can distinguish it, do so. Show me. Otherwise I have no reason to treat them any differently.

There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you can reasonably assert they are delusion purely on the basis that they cannot be argued for. You can refuse to believe an assertion but saying it is delusion or on the same level as delusion - well, that's a bit too much like Dawkins petulance for me. — EnPassant

First of all, calling it "Dawkins petulance" is not a valid argument.

Second, you haven't provided an example of your first sentence. You tried, but it failed, as I demonstrated. Your attempt to draw a false equivalence isn't working.

As for 'reasonable' arguments. Many people speak glibly about what is 'rational' or 'reasonable' as if it was clearly understood what these words mean. Except on the most primitive level (science etc) we cannot agree on what these words mean. Indeed, much of philosophy is about trying to determine what is reasonable. A philosopher can present a seemingly reasonable argument and another, equally astute, philosopher can present a convincing counter argument. So how can reason be against itself? If we could understand what is reasonable we would know a great deal. — EnPassant

I just gave you an example of what's reasonable and what's not. You just don't want to accept it because it is in your interest to try to level the playing field. But it's not a level playing field. Your god nonsense is not on the same level. It would have to earn its place, but it is either too lazy or too incompetent to be counted amongst serious claims. It can't reach those heights. It is a different kettle of fish. It is a kettle of bullshit. And you pour us decent philosophy folk out a steaming cup of bullshit and offer it to us. I decline. :vomit:

That is the short version. The argument is that mind precedes space and that must be God's mind. — EnPassant

What do you mean by "mathematics precedes space" and how did you reach that conclusion?

Well, you should have taken me up on that x^2 point because I was leading up to evidence for God. — EnPassant

Cut to the chase. Give me the short version. Thus far, it just looks like a distraction or a delaying tactic.

Simply saying it is a matter of reason is not saying much. What is reason? Is reason only something that can be shared through language? Who has a monopoly on what is reasonable? The very question about God can be answered simply if we can say for sure what is reasonable. Are you saying that something that cannot be shared is not reasonable? Like I said, if I had a thought about X this morning it is, for me reasonable to believe I was thinking about X. But I cannot share that reasonable conclusion because I cannot prove I had a thought about X. Does that mean my conclusion is no different from delusion? — EnPassant

For starters, stop mentioning "for sure" and "proof". That is beside the point. Certainty is not required and has not been requested.

Now, there can be a reasonable basis for the belief that you had a thought about some particular thing this morning. That's an ordinary and relatable scenario. There's nothing controversial about it. A reasonable argument can be constructed logically based on empiricism, and based on science. We know that humans are capable of thinking, and have thoughts. It is plausible that you had a thought this morning. You could be lying about what exactly it was about, but why would you do so? It would be charitable to assume that you're not lying without good reason to think that you are lying. And it seems unlikely that you'd be mistaken.

But extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. They can't be reasonably justified in the same way. If you claim that you can see ghosts or that God revealed himself privately to you or that you know that the moon is really made of cheese, then any reasonable person would need more than your mere saying so in order to reasonably reject that you're not deluded and that your claim is not bullshit. On the face of it, that's exactly what it looks like.

Love thine enemy. — Merkwurdichliebe

:kiss:

Only from some people's point of view. Another theist would not put it on that footing. — EnPassant

No, this is not a "point of view" thing. You're only talking in those terms because you know that you have no leg to stand on. It is a matter of reason. Can you reasonably distinguish your belief from a delusion? If not, then you fail at epistemology.

I put an idea to the thread earlier. What do you think of the difference between reality and images of reality (or knowledge). Suppose you have x^2 over a given range. That produces a range of values, even an infinite range. Now, you can draw a graph x^2 on a piece of paper. What is the difference between the graph and the idea of x^2? The difference is that the idea is abstract knowledge, the graph is a physical image of the idea. But they look like entirely different things; one is ink and paper, the other is in the mind.

Why is it that 2D space can receive and display an idea? If it is possible for 2D space to manifest, accurately, a mathematical concept there must be some natural 'common reality' between space and math. If there were not natural similarity space could not display the graph.

What then is this common reality between mind and space? — EnPassant

I only asked whether you were interested in epistemology in the strict context of the problem I raised. If you can somehow get from the above to resolving the issue I raised, then please do so, and cut to the chase. The wording of your conclusion should be, "Therefore, my belief that God exists is distinguishable from a delusion". Or alternatively you could concede that there's no reasonable means of distinguishing your belief from a delusion.

"Your clan"? Who's that? — Merkwurdichliebe

I come from a clan of ninjas who fix typos with lightning speed. You must be from a rival clan. We are mortal enemies.

And you want reasonable ground as evidence, of course you are asking for proof. — Merkwurdichliebe

Say what? A request for evidence is a request for evidence, not a request for proof.

Yes, true. And he probably has reasonable ground for his belief, just no positive proof. Have you two settled the question of whether or not you can know something and not be able to prove it? — Merkwurdichliebe

This just circles back to the fact that he has no leg to stand on, philosophically. The question just becomes whether there is any reasonable grounds to believe that he has reasonable grounds for his belief. And guess what? There isn't.

Once again, I haven't even mentioned proof, so you people should just stop with this red herring. If there is reasonable grounds, then show it. You or him. If you can't, or if he can't, then neither of you have a leg to stand on, and the claim can be rightly dismissed. That's how philosophy works. Get used to it.

However, there is a way for EnPassant to distinguish between his faith and his belief, and that makes all the difference. — Merkwurdichliebe

His claim was about knowledge. Knowledge has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with belief. And there's no reasonable basis to think that what he has claimed to have knowledge of is anything other than just a belief, at best. It's no different, except superficially, than saying that I know that ghosts exist or that the moon is really made of cheese. It has no leg to stand on, philosophically.