Les,
Just an observation, obviously you�d say I�m way off, and I may be.

I love how you start these comments with a disclaimer that you could be wrong, but then go on to make confident declarations about whatever the hell you’re commenting on.

It seems that Hires has not yet really brought up God, but YOU know that if you admit to anything he says then he will. So I�m just saying that your going way out of your way just to make sure that you stand against everything he says, even if it does make sense. Giving him an edge may cause a little weakness on your side and we all know you can�t have that happen!! Horrors if he happens to be right!!

It’s obvious to me the direction Hires is trying to go in, but that in itself is not a reason for me to disagree with his statements if they make sense and seem to represent reality. From my experiences, however, what he has described to date is not how things work and don’t make any sense.

Your claim that I am going out of my way to avoid being wrong is not only inaccurate, it’s insulting and shows the bias you hold. Hires is making propositions and asking me if I agree with them, I do not agree with them and I’m stating my reasons as I go, which is more than can be said of your responses to date.

So anyways, keep picking away at the little words and whatnot that you don�t like him to use and keep overlooking his main point, I think your getting somewhere.

I’m not ignoring his main point. I’ve addressed it head-on. Not that I understand why you would bitch about such a thing as that’s exactly the sort of tactic you like to use in these conversations. Once again: Pot, Kettle, Black.

Yes I realize that my beliefs look as stupid to you as the mormons do to me, all I�m saying is that one IS right

And how do you know for certain that one of them is definitely right? It’s entirely possible that ALL of them could be wrong.

Incidentally DB, how come you’ve not come over to the SEB Forums and followed up on your thread over there?

Les,

Firstly, what I mean by the �herd instinct� is this: the desire to act in a certain way, based on what we�ve learned from our parents and society.  You yourself said this:

�At a very general level it is better for long-term survivability of everyone in a particular culture if they agree on certain ideas such as killing each other at random for no apparent reason as being a bad idea, or �wrong.� Cultures were the opposite idea is taught wouldn�t tend to survive for very long.�

And I would most certainly agree with that. Earlier, you also said this:

�One of the major reasons has to do with the social nature of human beings. In short, if I don�t want to spend my entire life lonely and without friends then I had best learn how to get along with at least some of the people I meet otherwise I�m likely to be ostracized and shunned. If I�m particularly bad at social relations my own family may even avoid dealing with me any more than they have to. Not exactly a pleasant way to go through life unless you enjoy being a hermit and few people do. Thus it is in my own self-interest to improve and better my social skills if I don�t want to be alone.�

And I would agree with you yet again.  I�m sorry that so much confusion was caused by using the term �herd instinct�, but it is merely a term to describe a concept.  The concept being: that we act a certain way based on what we�ve learned, not on what we are born with. When I was using the analogy of the drowning man, I did make clear that you did want to help him due to your �learned behaviors� (ie: herd instinct).  But what is interesting is that we tend to side with the weaker of the two impulses in those type of situations.  You would much rather not take a bullet for your wife, but you feel you ought to because you love her. 

What some of you are saying is this: �Isn�t what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?� I think there is another misunderstanding here.  You may, or may not be, taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must of course be a human invention.  But that is not so.  We all learned the multiplication table at school.  A child who grew up on a desert island would not know it.  But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked?  I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else.  But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different - we learn to keep to the right of the road, but it might as well have been the rule to keep to the left - and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths.  The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs. 

There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics.  The first is, as I said earlier, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great - not nearly so great as most people imagine - and you can recognize the same law running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, my differ to any extent.  When you think of these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another?  Have any of the changes been improvements?  If not, then of course there never could be any moral progress.  Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better.  If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality.  In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others, as Les so plainly put about us and the Nazis.  We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers - people who understood morality better than their neighbors did.  Ok then.  The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.  But the standard that measures two things is something different from either.  You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people�s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.  Or put it this way.  If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something - some Real Morality - for them to be true about.  The reason your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks.  If when each of us said �New York� each means merely �The city I am imagining in my own head�, how could one of us have truer ideas than the other?  There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all.  In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behavior meant simply �whatever each nation happens to approve�, there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval then any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse.

I conclude then, that though the difference between people�s ideas of Decent Behavior often make you suspect that there is no real natural Low of Behavior at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite.  I have heard people who exaggerate the differences of morality and differences of belief about facts.  For example, if one man says, �Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death.  Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?� But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do no believe there are such things.  If we did - if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers to kill their neighbors or bring bad weather - surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these people did?  There is no difference in moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact.  It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there.  You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.

The concept being: that we act a certain way based on what we�ve learned, not on what we are born with.

Then it is NOT an instinct.

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people�s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.

A standard is something commonly used and accepted as an authority.  It does not point to a higher power.  You are basing your “real Right standard” on your “Truth”, which lets you make your “logical” connection.  You can find instances of the Golden Rule in many religions.  How does pointing out that there are common morals between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions indicate that YOUR God exists?  Maybe you’re wrong about God and their god is actually the correct one.  Which leads to whose “Truth” is really true(if there can be any at all).

I don�t know about anyone else, but I�m starting to become slightly offended. Hires has a conversation going with Les, and like a bad party guest, he�s trying to monopolize the attention of the host as though he was the sole invitee. I�ve noticed that others have made attempts to talk to him and have been ignored.  How rude! Now he�s telling Les his instincts tell him Les should herd us all over to a better party place. Then, take DB! He is sure that God is the real host of the party and all he wants to do is suck up to Him instead. It doesn�t matter if this God is a poorly constructed ideal without substance or permanence. DB received his invitation, otherwise known as the �Great Book of Lies�, and he�ll be damned if he�s not going to make the party. Literally!

So we have two guests, one who�s far too special to talk to anyone but the host, and we have another one who came to the party expecting to see and talk to God, but has to suffer polite conversation with a bunch of losers instead.

It�s a fun party though. There�s lots of popcorn, boiled peanuts and Jell-o to eat. Mild Bill drank most of the booze and is callously firing advanced munitions into the neighbor�s back yards, shouting, �You only continue to exist because I allow you to�. Jehoshaphat, who fancies himself the former king of Judah, made a brief appearance along with Rep, MB, Jesse VB and IB Bill, but they�ve all gone now, perhaps to other, more palatable parties. Serai was here too, hunting trolls and brandishing a magic wand of some sort, but she has been absent for a while. Someone said that Brandi is making a brandy run and will be back. I hope so, as she has that sweet accent and is fun to listen to when she talks.

I�m telling bawdy stories and embarrassing the host, while Eric is running around straightening furniture and placing coasters under drinks so Les� belongings won�t display unsightly rings.

Meanwhile, Les is patiently awaiting the end of the party, when he can clean up the place a bit and go to sleep forever, certain he will never host a party like this again.

I�m just glad no one�s called the cops. Shots anyone?

Brock,

I am sorry if I offended you.  And yes, I do need to be acknowledging the people that are responding to my posts.  I will work to improve this as time goes on. But as far as I can see, so far, I have addressed each issue that was asked of me, whether the letter was addressed to you or not.  But, none the less, I will personify my posts if it makes you less offended. 

Les,
“And how do you know for certain that one of them is definitely right? It�s entirely possible that ALL of them could be wrong.”

There’s no question that there is A god, as far as I can see, (which of course isn’t near as far as you can see, you always being RIGHT and all...)
Logically, it really can’t make sense any other way for me, too bad absolute truth didn’t exist! Then we could all be right!
Too bad the geometric column doesn’t exist! Then we could all believe that the earth is millions of years old!
It’s too bad that scientists believe that the grand canyon was carved out by the colorado river over millions of years, It just makes them look stupid!
Also too bad that true right and wrong exists! Otherwise we could all go on a mass slaughter-fest with mild bill and be right!....orrrr wrong....Whatever!! yay!
party on Brock!

Oh yeah, the reason why I haven’t been responding lately is because I’m getting ready to go to Australia on tues. Maybe I’ll make some posts from there.

Oh and I have some good masons-satanic quotes, I’ve just got to dig them up, hopefully before I leave.

Brock

I concur with your sentiment; Hires is being quite rude to us other nimrods here.  I�ve read a lot of interesting things on this site, but this is unequalled:

It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.

I suppose there is also no great moral advancement in NOT beating, raping, and killing slaves, because we don�t believe in slavery anymore?  I can�t even begin to fathom how anyone could think that way.  Brock, I thought you had the most �interesting� way of thinking, but Hires has you beat hands down :happy:

Delta Bravo (DB)

I never raped or pillage any village that didn�t deserve it.  Well there was that one time I went into a small village in Turkey and announced that I would kill everyone there if they didn�t accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  After they �refused� and I slaughtered them, one of my colleagues pointed out that maybe they just didn�t understand English!  What a crazy thing to say; everyone understands English!  Oh wait that wasn�t me�that was Christian soldiers during the Inquisition!  My bad.

Clearly I respect your religious beliefs and am not challenging them, but some of your �scientific� statements are quite interesting.

Too bad the geometric column doesn�t exist! Then we could all believe that the earth is millions of years old!

It�s too bad that scientists believe that the grand canyon was carved out by the Colorado river over millions of years, It just makes them look stupid!

I�ve never actually looked at the geologic column or measured erosion rates, so you may be right.  I�m a funny kind of guy though�when the vast majority of experts believe a thing; I tend to think it may be valid.  I don�t make life decisions based on it, but I tend to accept it after reading about it.

I heard that light travels at about 186,000 miles an hour.  I accept that, though I�ve never taken a radar gun out and measured light (is that possible???).  A fellow named Mendel in the 19th century discovered some interesting laws on how genetic traits are passed down through generations.  He didn�t call it �genetics� because he didn�t know what a gene was.  I believe Mendel said that it happened �through an unknown mechanism�.

A couple of guys named Clausius and Joule helped develop the Laws of Thermodynamics (the same laws that creationists bastardize).  I don�t pretend to understand the formulas they used to support their reasoning, but I do believe them.  Mendel, Clausius, and Joule were all Christians and real scientists.  Other scientists have built on their work and made discoveries to benefit humanity.  What beneficial discoveries or contributions have �your� scientists made?

I worked on some very fast aircraft that I was told would go nearly three times the speed of sound (over 1,800 mph).  Most rifle bullets don�t go that fast (and if they do, it�s only momentary).  I find it difficult to comprehend how a huge aircraft, like the F-15 fighter, can do that, but I�m forced to accept it because all the data says it can and all the pilots say it can.  I�m told that when these same pilots initiate sharp turns in flight, that the forces applied to their bodies are nine times greater than normal.  Once again, I have not measured that, but have no reason to dispute it.  I�ve heard them talking on the radio while pulling g forces and either they are having orgasms or they are going through some serious physiological stress!

I could write thousands of pages about things that I don�t understand, but accept nonetheless.  Boy golly, I don�t understand why you and �your scientists� are viewed as quacks.  Maybe it�s because you don�t use the scientific method. Maybe it�s because you start with an �absolute truth� and look for evidence to support it, instead of looking at evidence to find what may be the truth.  That is not pseudo-science�it is anti-science�the opposite of science!  Once your boys use their �absolute truth� to make oil or coal, then I may believe their �theories�.  It seems that all the oil and coal on our planet was developed in only a few thousand years instead of millions of years as most foolish scientists maintain.  Surely your boys can use their knowledge to turn a pile of organic material into coal or oil�can�t they???

Have a good time Down Under...or what “they” want you to believe is Down Under!  If you could, please write us a message from there to convince us you are actually there.  My hypothesis is that if you are really sending a message from Australia, it will present itself upside down on my display.  If it doesn’t, you have had an elaborate hoax played on you my friend

Well, as entertaining as it is to watch Les engage with people who insist that the earth is flat, and that the sun orbits the earth, there’s no way that I myself am going to get “caught up” in that debate.  Les appears to take some sort of perverse pleasure in it, and I say “thanks, better you than me.  I’m off to watch the Matrix.”

As for there not being any “geologic column,” that’s a “young earther” canard that’s been pretty thoroughly worked over by now.  Here’s just one link

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

NOT that it will make any difference, to DB, or to anyone who thinks that Hovind is a “scientist,” since science is only valid if one is willing to change their mind when confronted with new evidence.  Science requires the constant mental state of “I might be mistaken.” Most religion requires, well, something else entirely. . .

All

To add to nowiser’s link suggestion, check out The Map That Changed the World by Simon Winchester. That book is the story of how William Smith invented modern geology. William Smith began working as surveyor, he traveled all over England taking observations in coal mines, doing the engineering asssociatd with canal building, and helping wealthy landowners find coal or improve drainage on thier proprty or find deposits of usefull clay and more. He was a fastideous observer, was fascinated by stratification, and built up the most complete fossil collection of that day.

He found that each strata could be identifed by a unique fosile. And found, that after correcting for slippage along fault surfaces, the strata were always in the some order--everywhere in England. He drew the excrutiatingly obvious conclusion that, since time passes and things happen, the older stuff is on the bottom.

He produced the first geographical map--similar maps have been used world wide to find coal and oil. Teams of geologists have only been able to verify his map, they haven’t improved it. And, yes his work was known to Darwin.

I would observe that, as far as we know, nothing like this was produced by any Islamic country. When the thinking of a culture is dominated by a bunch of fundamentalist theocratic clerics, that society will be stuck in time doing something like tending sheep and goats and weaving some pretty good rugs.

Vern R

Thanks and that�s just what I mean.  Smith�s work was used to help better understand the world we live in.  Remarkably, geologists can predict where oil can be found based on geologic evidence that Smith helped establish.  Creationists on the other hand use their �knowledge� purely to debunk conventional thought and bolster their religious beliefs.  I would really like to know if anyone has heard of any significant scientific contributions creationists have made.

I was quite shocked that the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) lists Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel as a �creationist scientists�.  For some reason they didn�t mention Clausius, who I believe was a minister and contributed quite a bit to thermodynamics.  I guess to ICR, believing in the bible is the sole qualification for being called a creationist.  Wacky bastards!

Mild Bill,

The issue of slavery seems (to me) to be quite different from that of witches. Were the slaves in agreement with the fact that they were slaves?  Of course not.  They obviously viewed it as being wrong.  And then, as time went on, some other people agreed that slavery was in fact wrong.  What these people were doing, was comparing this issue to some type of standard; saying that not having slaves, was closer to some real truth, and having slaves was therefore, less true.  Do you agree?

And Ragman seems to be going too quickly in terms of accusing me of saying something that I haven�t said. 

�How does pointing out that there are common morals between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions indicate that YOUR God exists?�

Well it doesn�t.  Fist of all, I haven�t said anything about a higher power, or anything about Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions.  And secondly, I�m not even within a hundred miles of the God of Christianity.  My point was that there is a common standard of truth that all human beings seem to want to abide by, whether you call it the Rule of Decent Behavior, or the Moral Law or whatever.  And thirdly, though we find ourselves expecting a certain type of behavior from other people, we fail to act that way ourselves. 

I will now go back to what I said earlier, that there are two odd things about the human race. First that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behavior they ought to practice, what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality or the Law of Nature.  Second, the they did no in fact do so.  Now some of you may wonder why I call this odd.  It may seem to you the most natural thing in the world.  Maybe, you thought I was being rather hard on the human race.  After all, you may say, what I call breaking the Law of Right and Wrong or of Nature, only means that people are not perfect.  And why on earth should I expect them to be?  That would be a good answer if what I was trying to do was to fix the amount of blame which is due to us for not behaving as we expect others to behave.  At present, I am not concerned with blame; I am trying to find out the truth.  And from that point of view the very idea of something being imperfect, of its not being what it ought to be, has certain consequences. 

If you take a thing like a stone or a tree, it is what it is and there is no use saying it ought to have been otherwise.  Of course you may say that stone is �the wrong shape� if you want to use it for a rockery, or that a tree is a bad tree because it does not give you as much shade as you expected.  But all you mean is that the stone or tree does not happen to be convenient for some purpose of your own.  You are not, except as a joke, blaming them for that.  You really know, that, given the weather and the soil, the tree could not have been any different.  What we, from our point of view, call a �bad� tree is obeying the laws of its nature just as much as a �good� one.

Now what we usually call the laws of nature - the way weather works on a tree for example - may not really be laws in the strict sense, but only a manner of speaking.  When you say that falling stones always obey the law of gravitation, is not this much the same as saying that the law only means �what stones always do�?  You do not really think that when a stone is let go, it suddenly remembers that it is under orders to fall to the ground.  You only mean that, in fact, it does fall.  In other words, you cannot be sure that there is anything over and above the facts themselves, any law about what ought to happen, as distinct from what does happen.  The laws of nature, as applied to stones or trees, may only mean �what Nature, in fact, does�.  But when you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behavior, it is a different matter. The law certainly does not mean �what human beings, in fact, do�; for as I said before, many of them do not obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely.  The law of gravitation tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not.  In other words, when you are dealing with humans, something else comes in and above and beyond the actual facts.  You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave).  In the rest of the universe, there need no be anything else but the facts.  Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story. But men behave in a certain way and that is not the whole story, for all the time you know they ought to behave differently. 

Now I will try to explain this further.  For example, we might try to make out that when you say a man ought not to act as he does, you only mean the same as when you say that a stone is the wrong shape; namely, that what he is doing happens to be inconvenient to you.  But that is simply untrue.  A man occupying the corner seat in the subway because he got there first, and a man who slipped into it while my back was turned and removed my bag, are both equally inconvenient.  But I blame the second man and do not blame the first.  I am not angry - except perhaps for a moment before I come to my senses - with a man who trips me up by accident; I am angry with a man who tried to trip me up even if he does not succeed.  Yet the first has hurt me, and the second has not. 

(this post was not only addressed to Mild Bill, but also to anyone else who wishes to respond)

Were the slaves in agreement with the fact that they were slaves?

Certainly they were not in agreement as people accused of witchcraft did not agree they were witches!  They were accused of this offense by overzealous, God-inspired believers.  I�ve read where these champions of morality would tie rocks to �witches� and throw them in water.  If they floated they were witches and were executed�the ones that sank and died were not witches.  That would be comical if it was a just fantasy, but regrettably it was real!  That�s as logical as one of my favorite movie lines where a helicopter gunner says:

�If they run, they�re Viet Cong�if they stand still, they�re brave Viet Cong�

What these people were doing, was comparing this issue to some type of standard; saying that not having slaves, was closer to some real truth, and having slaves was therefore, less true. Do you agree?

I partially agree, but �those people� only learned the �truth� when Federal forces were camped out on their front porches.  It�s interesting how millions of good Bible-believing Christians were �guided� by God to further that despicable institution.  Were those Christians absolutely wrong?  How could they be if the Bible condones the practice of slavery?  Just so we are clear on this, here is what condones means:

To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

That doesn�t mean you have to promote it or sponsor it.  It�s similar to the US government condoning the use of alcohol and tobacco. That�s probably not a great example because of the back room deals made with those industries, but “honest” officials of the government (is that an oxymoron or what? ) do not �directly� encourage the use of either substance.

You should drop all the Kwai Chang Cain talk about stones and trees and clearly define your �Laws of Human Nature�.  Scientists, other than Kent Hovind and his merry-go-round theory of planetary motion, don�t generally use simile and metaphors to describe laws.  Remember, there are no exceptions to laws�slavery was either always right or always wrong�it wasn�t right in �Bible days� and wrong during modern times, because the people alive during Bible times were the most modern people there were!  Note also that I used the word lawS (plural), because anything that complex could not possibly be described by one law.  I don�t agree that there are such laws, at least not in the scientific sense, but you have every right to present them here.

Could you please make use of paragraphs more often?  All those white letters crammed together on a black background make me dizzy:)

Hires, what are you getting at? I understand your post, but I don’t see the point you are trying to make. Surely you have a conclusion that you feel should be drawn from all that. Help me out. WHAT is the point you’re trying to argue?

Brandi, Mild Bill

I apologize for how lengthy my posts have been.  But in order to find out the truth, I believe there are a few more steps we must take, in order to make things fully understandable. And I will try to minimize the size of my paragraphs as well.

I will begin with yet another analogy:

Sometimes the behavior which I call bad is not inconvenient to me at all, but the very opposite.  In war, each side may find a traitor on the other side very useful.  But though they use him and pay him they regard him as human vermin.  So you cannot say that what we call decent behavior in others is simply the behavior that happens to be useful to us. 

And as for decent behavior in ourselves, I suppose it is pretty obvious that it does not mean the behavior that pays.  It means things like being content with ten dollars when you might have gotten one hundred dollars, doing school work honestly when it would be easy to cheat, leaving a girl alone when you would like to make love to her, staying in dangerous places when you would like to go somewhere safer, keeping promises you would rather not keep, and telling the truth even when it makes you look a fool. 

Some people say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular person at a particular moment, still, it means what pays the human race as a whole; and that consequently, there is no mystery about it. Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have any real safety or happiness except in a society where everyone plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently.

Now, of course, it is only true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other.  It is one of the most important truths in the world.  But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point. 

If we ask: �Why ought I to be unselfish?� and you reply �Because it is good for society,� we may then ask, � Why should I care what is good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?� and then you will have to say, �Because you ought to be unselfish� - which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further.  If a man asked what was the point of playing football, it would not be much good saying �in order so score goals�, for trying to score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you would really only be saying that football is football - which is true, but not worth saying.  In the same way, if a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, �in order to benefit society�, for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for �society� after all only means �other people�), is one of the things decent behavior consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behavior is decent behavior.  You would have said just as much if you had stopped at the statement, �Men ought to be unselfish.�

And that is where I do stop.  Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair.  Not that men are unselfish, not that they like being unselfish, but they ought to be.  The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behavior in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave.  On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we can not get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did.  And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for your own convenience; for the behavior we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behavior we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. 

Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing - a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves.  And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behavior is a fact.  It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men�s behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but we find pressing on us.

Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing - a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behavior is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men�s behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but we find pressing on us.

Finally, something I can disagree with. Without proper (or any) socialization, humans would not have this sense of unselfishness or altrustic desires, and would behave much like animals (possibly not even that well). What you are talking about is LEARNED behavoir, a result of socialization, not a higher power.

Yes, Hires, what is your point?  You say you aren’t making any religious claim, yet your arguements sure seem to fall into that path. 

Say I get mugged in the parking lot.  According to your Absolute Truthful Standards of Right Behavior, what would be my Correct Right Behavior Response?  Yes, I want you to answer the question.  I know what I’m likely to do, but then, since humans don’t always obey the Standard, my reaction to the mugging is a moot point.

In war, each side may find a traitor on the other side very useful. But though they use him and pay him they regard him as human vermin.

A vast overgeneralization!  I would wager that any Iraqi soldier that defected/surrendered during the recent conflict was not viewed that way.  I would think our guys would have thought quite highly of that.  Before you make statements like this you should really think them out logically.

Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have any real safety or happiness except in a society where everyone plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently.

Amazing Hires�I think Les and Brandi have said the same thing.  Our �decent� behavior is learned behavior.  What is decent in our society may be unacceptable in others.  In the USA, we don�t bat an eye when Coke belittles Pepsi or KFC puts down burger joints, but in Japan and Germany, that kind of stuff is taboo.  Conversely, many acceptable Japanese business practices are considered unlawful here.  That�s not right or wrong�just different!

When you pick up a newspaper in England, you�ll usually find a photo of a gorgeous 18 to 20-something topless girl on Page 3.  Not a problem in the UK, but the end of the world in Alabama.  I bought a �dog� in England.  The breeder corrected me and said it wasn�t a �dog�, but a �bitch�!!!  I nearly fainted dead away!  Apparently a dog is a male canine and a bitch is a female canine.  It�s their language, so I didn�t feel it was my place to correct her.  Try calling a female dog a bitch in this righteous country�gun play may follow!!!

I recall an interesting case study about a girl who was locked away and abused until she was near adolescence.  I saw the movie of that story a few weeks back on the Lesbia�err...I mean Lifetime Channel .  This girl was not taught to speak, care for her own hygiene, or socialize with others.  She was very little more than an animal�she masturbated in public and ate her own vomit (like a dog).  They say she never really got to a �normal� social level because she wasn�t socialized when she was young.  She never �learned� the proper �behavior�!

It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men�s behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but we find pressing on us.

I concur there are as many different kinds of realities as there are people on Earth!  Everyone operates off their own version of reality.  What is this �real law we find pressing on us?� I don�t have to wait for November to see the Matrix�Morpheus is right here in the guise of Hires:

�I know what the real law is�I just have to know that I know what the real law is�

If we ask: �Why ought I to be unselfish?� and you reply �Because it is good for society,� we may then ask, � Why should I care what is good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?� and then you will have to say, �Because you ought to be unselfish� - which simply brings us back to where we started.

No, it just brings YOU back around in circular reasoning. 

� Why should I care what is good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?� is a short sighted statement.  Your response to it is inadequate.  This is the point when you could explain to the short sighted person how society is more accepting of an unselfish person than a selfish person.  That it makes society more likely to help that person if he should need it.  It’s the whole “treat others as you would have them treat yourself” thing.  Not a “because I say so” or “because the Bible says to” thing. 

As for going too fast, I did jump to conclusions.  I really shouldn’t assume that just because you believe in God/Jesus, that would mean you believe He is the source of morality.  Or that you would try to prove it.

And we finally get to the crux of the problem with your argument…

If we ask: �Why ought I to be unselfish?� and you reply �Because it is good for society,� we may then ask, � Why should I care what is good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?� and then you will have to say, �Because you ought to be unselfish� - which simply brings us back to where we started.

The question response sequence you give above is typical of people who haven’t actually given any thought to the questions being asked. I have already illustrated earlier in this thread that there are valid reasons to be unselfish, but let’s go over your statements above anyway. The typical response you give to the first question, because “it benefits society,” is a valid response though I’d argue it’s not a particularly good response. Still, we’ll accept it for the moment and move to your second question: Why should I care what is good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?

You then claim that we “have to say” a response that I think is total nonsense. Because you ought to be unselfish is not what I would respond to that question with. Why should I care about the good of society except when it benefits me directly? Because a well-developed society DOES benefit you directly. The obviousness of this should be punching you in the nose. I’ve already pointed out previously that human survivability is increased when we cooperate and compromise, in other words when we act unselfish for the good of society. Cultures that did not teach this approach have been outlasted by those that did.

Let me put this in as simple an analogy as I can so you’ll understand it better, Hires. Let’s pretend there are two tribes of humans and one of these tribes teaches its members that bathing is the “right thing to do” and the other tribe teaches that bathing is wrong. On the surface there is nothing inherently “right” or “wrong” about the act of taking a bath. Because of the discoveries of modern science we know that bathing regularly reduces your chances of catching various diseases as well as just generally making you more pleasant to be around and as such there are real and logical reasons why bathing should be encouraged.

Without that scientific knowledge there’s really no reason other than personal preference to promote or discourage bathing as being the right or wrong thing to do. That doesn’t change the fact that the tribe that teaches its members that bathing is the “right thing to do for the good of society” will have a lower incident rate of communicable diseases and therefor a greater chance of long-term survival. Given enough time if the tribe that doesn’t bathe never manages to change their way of thinking on the issue then they risk the very real possibility of dieing out.

Now, will every member of the bathing society always comply with the teaching that bathing is the “right” thing to do? No, not always. Those that don’t cooperate because they don’t see the immediate benefit to themselves will probably find themselves shunned by those that do and will be less likely to survive in part because they are filthy and in part because no one will want to help them. In other words, those people in a society who behave in a selfish manner will endanger their long-term survivability.

None of this requires some sort of “magical outside standard” or “Law of Human Nature” or “Moral Law” that is established by something other than human beings. It’s as simple as this: People who make decisions that benefit their long-term survivability will be more prevalent than people who make decisions that are a detriment to their long-term survivability.

Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing - a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behavior is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men�s behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but we find pressing on us.

I have to admit that the above actually made me laugh out loud. You like to make a lot of claims about what “we shall have to admit” as though there are no other possible viewpoints. Just because you can’t imagine any other possible explanations doesn’t mean I can’t imagine other possible explanations.

There is no “Moral Law” as external standard or force that exhorts men to behave “properly” against their selfish tendencies. It’s all a product of what you were taught and, as I said before, any time spent with a toddler will prove this fact to you easily.

I’ve had a similar argument in the past. About humans (specifically children, but in this case all humans) having some other-wordly or god-given sense of fairness and right. There are many stories, not just the one on the Lesbetarian*....uh, Lifetime channel to illustrate that without socialization (even in the absence of abuse) children do NOT have any of these traits naturally. They are selfish in the highest order.

We really are no better than the animals. A little smarter in some cases maybe, but no better.

Gorillas have been shown to have IQs up to 90, within “normal” range of humans (OK. low-to-average). Primates are very social animals and will often exhibit the same signs of altruism, empathy, and unselfishness “pressing on them” (though not as complex) as Hires claims humans do. Is this a higher power pressing on them, too? Showing them the absolute truth? No...it’s just the nature of social animals.

I don’t see that he is arguing from the standard fundie pulpit, as thus far he’s only tried to make the argument for a higher power in general. But my argument remains, it’s just socialization.

And I also think that true altruism is rare. The giving person is still getting something out of it...a sense of well being, a sense of duty to community, a deposit in the life karma bank, what goes around comes around, recognition, to assuage guilt, etc. I’d like to think I was being a sweet person by giving up my seat on the bus to the old lady. But in reality, I get enjoyment out of seeing her happy, and it’s very likely some of the other passengers would kick my petit ass if I didn’t. Giving up my seat, in reality, was still best for ME in my given situation.

It’s just socialization. Absence of socialization shows a marked absence of unselfish traits, therefore our unselfishness doesn’t support the existance of a higher power....else it would be present in everyone, regardless of socialization.

*Lesbetarian - not a slur, but a joke between the initiated. When I asked my lesbian friend about her politics, she said “Oh, I vote Lesbetarian”. Or, when her gaydar goes off, she’ll mutter lasciviously “ooo she’s votin’ Lesbetarian”. It’s not a slur, it’s just funny.

Les,

You answered this question - �Why should I care what is good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?� - with this: �Because a well-developed society DOES benefit you directly.  The obviousness of this should be punching you in the nose.�

Well I must say that the idiocy of that answer should be punching YOU in the NUTS.  I believe the question was stated in such a way that you needed to come up with an answer other than, �it happens to pay me personally�.  But that�s exactly what you said (it happens to pay me personally).  Thus, you are not understanding the question correctly.  Maybe you need to read the question again. 

�Why should I care what is good for society EXCEPT when it happens to pay me personally?�

Perhaps I should now reverse the �medications� question that was asked of me earlier.  And as I understand it, you are the one with adult ADD, not I.

Oh no you didn’t!!!

Well I must say that the idiocy of that answer should be punching YOU in the NUTS.  I believe the question was stated in such a way that you needed to come up with an answer other than, �it happens to pay me personally�.  But that�s exactly what you said (it happens to pay me personally).  Thus, you are not understanding the question correctly.  Maybe you need to read the question again. 

�Why should I care what is good for society EXCEPT when it happens to pay me personally?�

No nuts here, so I’ll just wait for it to punch me in the boobs if I’m wrong.

“�Why should I care what is good for society EXCEPT when it happens to pay me personally?” OK, excluding all situations where my altruistic or unselfish actions pay me personally....wait, that doesn’t leave any. They all pay me personally, at least in some small way. Some more so than others. Because I am a socialized animal.

Feral children (unsocialized humans) have absolutely no sense of right or wrong. None. They only care what pays them personally, because they have no social basis to do anything else.

The very existance of feral or unsocialized children, and the observance of their lack of Divine Truth or Absolute Right and Wrong is clear evidence that there isn’t any. It’s learned. Otherwise they would share at least the “biggies” of societal standards of fairness and right simply by virtue of being born...and they don’t.

So now what?