Original Sin and...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

http://i.imgur.com/wjkio24.jpg

[_SteelHead]

Dr. Cam just won the internet.

[_subgenius]

There is not fault, just talking past each other.
My contention the whole time has been that there are no intrinsic morals, but that all societies have morals.

so, it is just coincidence that all of them have it...everyone has fingers and toes, some are long, some are short, some are white and some are brown,...but that in no way means that fingers and toes are intrinsic to humans....got it!
Darwin's idea that the feelings and behaviors from which morality is based are "instinct" and intrinsic is wrong...not because of the argument he uses to frame that conclusion, but rather simply because you have discovered that you can just say it is so.....got it!

Sub made the claim of intrinsic morals. So it is incumbent upon him to prove so. You seem to be supporting his assertion, but to claim that alp societies have morals does not translate into thou shalt not kill, thou shaking not steal, and thou shalt not commit adultery. As all 3 are perfectly and demonstrably acceptable in a variety of societies.

I have made the claim and provided the support....support you have endorsed, but now try to ignore - for example "the first moral is survival".
The fact has become clear that you are still trying to argue that even though you recognize the existence of fried chicken, baked chicken, roasted chicken, etc...you still consider your position of "there is no such thing as chicken" as being something other than absurd.
Then we are at an impasse with your ego...you are entrenched...you have constructed a reality that has yo convinced of some dire consequence befalling you should you actual progress from your current position....ironically you are stuck on the "first moral".....but, as Darwin, so eloquently concluded, you have already met your demise.

[_SteelHead]

Sub, some people are born with 6 toes. Some with none. Some people are completely amoral. The exceptions to the rule preclude universality/intrinsicness. In addition there is no universally accepted moral, again precluding universality. You can not claim that all folks universally have 10 toes. Normally yes. Universally no.

Your example is absurd. I am not claiming there is no chicken. I am claiming they are not all clones. That they are not universally red, nor transcendentally all like to crow at exactly 16:48:41 gmt. You are the one using all inclusive terms. The exceptions show that such terms do not apply, and you have yet to make q case supporting your assertions.

[_SteelHead]

Examining the terms you used you claim transcendent morals which means there is some set of moral rules beyond and existing independent of the human condition.

Tou have claimed intrinsic morals; that there is a morality built into the human condition.

You have claimed universal morals. That there is some subset common across all humanity.

All three claims have notable exceptions. You have provided 0 support for your claims.

[_subgenius]

Madeline,
You state that all societies have rules against adultery and then broaden out the definition to include every sexual behavior. Adultery becomes meaningless.

no it does not. study the De Stijl movement

You claim all societies have morals about murder then broaden out the definition of murder as to be meaningless.

not really, the concept of murder is still clear....that is why i recommend De Stijl for you.
Think of it like this: Many people speak different languages, this does not render communication as meaningless.

You claim all societies have morals about stealing and then broaden out the definition of stealing as to be meaningless.

not really. The moral of stealing is intrinsic to humans. One does not need a social setting, laws, or courts to "realize" that when something that you consider as being yours is taken from you without permission that action is "bad". Likewise, regardless of circumstance when someone else has possession of something that you desire and you take it without permission, you know it is bad...intrinsically bad...this is echoed by Darwin's observations and conclusions when he notices that favor is bestowed upon those with morals.....did you not get a chance to read that post?

Who is moving the goalposts?

you are

There are no universally accepted standards as to good and bad. There are standards in all societies regarding acceptable behavior. That does not mean that the morals are intrinsic or transcendent, it means that having norms is a characteristic of society. You and sub have still failed at providing an example of a universal norm.

i did provide one...bumped it twice...and because it proves you wrong, you have ignored it. Your statement here is a lie...universally a lie.

A society with norms and rules about who may sleep with whom, but which does not have taboos about extra marital sex, does not have a no adultery moral. It has sexual morals, but they are not classified as "no adultery".

you are being overly pragmatic. The mere fact that a marriage exists, or that a "Paired" exists means, without exception, that a transgression of that marriage, or of that "Pairing" exists. It is a transgression of that marriage/pair structure that constitutes adultery as an intrinsic concept.
So, while western marriage may be like fried chicken and Polynesian marriage like roasted chicken...both have chicken.


for Madeleine

[_subgenius]

Sub, some people are born with 6 toes. Some with none. Some people are completely amoral. The exceptions to the rule preclude universality/intrinsicness. In addition there is no universally accepted moral, again precluding universality. You can not claim that all folks universally have 10 toes. Normally yes. Universally no.

no, i can claim that. The glaring flaw in your argument is that you are arguing the exception, not the rule...Madeleine pointed that error out to you previously, i believe. Perhaps you should understand the word "intrinsic"...it means belonging to naturally. In other words, it is the universal condition to be a human being born with fingers and toes (though i never specified number...10 of each is what naturally belongs). That being said, yes some people are born without fingers...so? that does not negate the intrinsic nature of human fingers and toes...no one is ever born without fingers and toes and then years later decide that they would like to have them and then "individually decide" to grow them, flesh and bone, from their little club hands and their little club feet.

Your example is absurd. I am not claiming there is no chicken. I am claiming they are not all clones. That they are not universally red, nor transcendentally all like to crow at exactly 16:48:41 gmt. You are the one using all inclusive terms. The exceptions show that such terms do not apply, and you have yet to make q case supporting your assertions.

I am not using inclusion...you are...you have exerted much effort to detail the size shape and color of every possible chicken, when the record clearly shows that I, and Madeleine, have merely been talking about chicken...heck, you were the first guy to bring God and Christianity into the discussion.

[Guest]

Right.... Because the original topic was about....?

Oh yeah. Adam, and original sin. How was god and Christianity not included?

Sin is a more specific term than morality. Divinity is attached to it as sin is defined as violating god's will. Original sin is a Christian concept.

If some subset of a population lacks a trait or characteristic is that trait intrinsic? At what point does it fail to be intrinsic? Is all of humanity equiped with a sense of morality?

Yes I am arguing exception, as you are using terms that are all inclusive.

If you had said the normal condition for humans is to be moral, then we would not be having this discussion.

If you had said that morality seems to be a flexible set of rules, norms, and mores common to a culture, society, or sub group, instead of universal and transcendent.... We would not be having this discussion.

I am taking exception to terms you are employing to set the timbre of the discussion.

[_madeleine]

There is not fault, just talking past each other.

My contention the whole time has been that there are no intrinsic morals, but that all societies have morals.

Oh, OK. :)

Sub made the claim of intrinsic morals. So it is incumbent upon him to prove so. You seem to be supporting his assertion, but to claim that alp societies have morals does not translate into thou shalt not kill, thou shaking not steal, and thou shalt not commit adultery. As all 3 are perfectly and demonstrably acceptable in a variety of societies.

It's all in the language we use, I think, which even in anthropology has to be clearly defined, since "adultery" has western connotations. Applied to non-western cultures it can be construed that one speaking of adultery=one man, one woman, married where sexual relationship(s) with others outside of this is "adultery". But in the context of anthropology, it means sexual behavior that creates the emotion of "horror" in the individuals of a particular culture. There are as many different "horrors" as there are cultures, but the underlying thing is, that there is "horror" at all. That is what a Catholic theologian would call "natural law", and what Darwin would call evolved behavior (or emotion?) for the benefit of the species.

*whew*

[_SteelHead]

Madeline,
And by intrinsic in the quote from me you employed, I mean no common set or condition of what is always right, and what is always wrong inherent in being human. And as some beings are amoral, intrinsic may not be the best term... Societies by definition do have some kind of a common set. But individuals in a culture may have variations on the cultural norms.