Simon Paynton

Quite possibly, the octopus dies because it has reproduced, and is no longer needed.  I heard in the Nichola Raihani vs. Michael Shermer podcast in this week’s Sunday School, that there is an evolutionary reason why human grandmothers survive past reproductive age.  They are helping their grandchildren to survive by helping to look after them, s…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

The advantage of having a critical mind is the ability to develop either overarching theories or principles that help dictate rules, some of them more flexible than others (utilitarian for that matter).

It’s interesting you should mention utilitarianism.  The pressure to thrive + a prosocial attitude leads to a version of…[Read more]

In morality, a norm is something that people think is good, rather than something which is normal.  I can think of some norms that are hard to account for, like the norm against homosexuality.  I think this has to do with two things: 1) the sacredness of the male-female pair bond for the purpose of reproduction (“no sex outside marriage”); and 2…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

I think your “philosophy” should be flexible and it is beneficial to be able evolve to fit the changing environment.

I definitely think that philosophers should be flexible enough to listen to new facts that come along, and to change their philosophy if necessary.

Davis wrote:

Could you please give us a few examples of this?

I can’t think of any right now.  Can you?

How exactly did you draw this conclusion?

Here is the theory of moral norms:

– through observation, we find that morality arises in the context of cooperation.  E.g., anyone whom we are not cooperating with is outside of our sphere of moral c…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

If you start by assuming something is absolute truth (or worse take it on faith) or try to justify your axioms at any cost you are, again doomed to intellectual failure.

Good philosophy is like science, and good philosophers are like scientists.  That’s true.  But I still see a lot of people in love with indefensible positions, who w…[Read more]

Good (morally good) as fulfilling an idea is only valid for some moral theories and not for others. In other words, your argument works only if it aligns with your arbitrarily chosen moral system. It does not with other ones such as deontological or utilitarian ones.

Yes, but they’re only partial theories.  They leave out the idea of moral norms.

Unseen wrote:

There seem to be no instances of evidence that don’t prove or align with your theory.

It’s a very powerful and wide-ranging theory.  So, it explains a lot.

Unseen wrote:

“Good or bad means to uphold or violate moral norms.” That’s just one of the definitions of “good” and “bad.” “This new drink is good,” for example, makes no moral claim.

That’s true.  But they’re related because each is an example of something fulfilling an ideal.

Malevolence can be wrong for the harm it does to the malevolent act…

[Read more]

But theologians are making an honest attempt to make sense of the factual information they think they have, in the same way that philosophers do.

Unseen wrote:

It’s how it relates to cruelty and pleasure that’s a mystery you need to clarify,

Fitness benefits (achieving goals) result in pleasure:

Our brains could have been wired so that good food, sex, being the object of admiration, and observing the success of one’s children were all aversive experiences.  However, any ancestor whose…

[Read more]

I’m not sure there is much atheist-related philosophy or learning you can have, unless it’s secular morality, which we have been forced into by incessant religious mocking and derision of our poor philosophy in that department.

Beyond “lack of belief in God”, I don’t see there’s much more to say philosophically.  Bertrand’s teapot, um, what else?

Time may not be real.  On the other hand, we have a perception of time, so that would point to something going on somewhere.  Also, Einstein’s mathematics depend on time to function logically, do they not?

Reality is real, and death is real.  I know so, because people I knew have passed away.

If you ask me, from a UK perspective, it is the health care system that is at fault by making people pay or die.  It’s inhumane.

Unseen wrote:

You seem to see malevolence as just an evolutionary thing and thus perfectly normal and thus maybe even good. Agree or disagree?

To see it as “normal” or “good” would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy: that natural things are good because they are natural.  Good or bad means to uphold or violate moral norms.  Malevolence v…[Read more]