0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2022 01:08:25 If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the futureA is immoral and impregnates B's wife. B is moral but sterile. Immoral wins and there is a conscious next generation.
If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the future
No ultimate goal needed, and no universal goal possible in a finite environment.
Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 27/12/2021 22:28:40What's the highest level of consciousness produced through abiogenesis?In your opinion, yourself, after many, many generations of evolution.
What's the highest level of consciousness produced through abiogenesis?
There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.So, which people are legitimately happy?
The highest level of consciousness would be omniscient and omnipotent, which I am clearly not.
I can safely say that no human exists from abiogenesis process without involving previous conscious beings.
What makes A immoral?
Does it make a difference if there are only those 3 persons left in entire universe, instead of billions?
Do you suggest that everyone can just follow their own moral standards?
If the history of exponential progress continues, then there would emerge some omniscient and omnipotent conscious entities in the future,
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2022 14:03:35There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.So, which people are legitimately happy?Thus proving that there is no universal good.
Would be, yes, but isn't. All your arguments are either anthrocentric, which is understandable since we don't have much insight into the thought processes of other species, or theocentric in some form, and there is no evidence of the existence of any supernatural being.
That's obvious if you accept that we have evolved from other conscious beings, but at some point there were no living things on the planet, so our remotest ancestors must have evolved from inorganic material.
Pretty well every society has some form of marriage and some sanctions against adultery. Or you could go back to my simple tests: would you like it if somebody else impregnated your wife? Clearly there are exceptions but the generality of human society considers sexually exclusive pairing to be the moral standard.
The survival of the species is quite distinct from morality, which is about the behavior of its members towards one another. From the point of view of the universe, any species is inconsequential - it's just a temporary local arrangement of atoms.
Sadly, the converse seems to be true. "Exponential progress" has led to the potential of humans to eradicate their entire species and to take most others with them. Our lives at present are ruled by a virus on the one hand, and various human parasites on the other. Common sense tells us to restrict our breeding, some religions and many politicians tell their stupid followers to outbreed the infidel. Which is winning?
Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad. No ultimate goal needed, and no universal goal possible in a finite environment.Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?
The existence of acceptable exceptions show that your morality is not universal.
In the past, number of soldiers strongly determined which side would win a war. But it's becoming less relevant. The invention of machine gun shifted the balance. Nuclear bombs and killing drones are shifting it even further.
Depends on your definition of "winning". Since 1945, the high-tech powers have lost every conflict with barefoot soldiers wielding Kalashnikovs and pointed sticks.
In the latest debacle, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has left the bad guys with enough weaponry to invade almost anywhere else.
No, that would lead to social disruption, and humans rely on cohesion for a comfortable life. Hence good legal systems that list and punish those things that society generally considers immoral (bad legal systems are based on rights and duties, rather than wrongs).