Simon Paynton

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]

Davis wrote:
“your definition” of thriving, not the actual one.

How would you define it?

Some of it is absolutely pointless, meaningless that defies even comprehension. It is outside power structures or simple explanations.

Only if the reason is unknown.  If the reason is known, then it does not defy comprehension.

Davis wrote:
Ultimately Simon…your second and third point are virtually the same. Your definition of thriving has become almost replaceable with “adaption and fitness” that the two are barely distinguishable.

That’s true.  Thriving is synonymous with evolutionary fitness.  It’s also synonymous with achieving goals.  However, some goals are pure…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Now I’m thinking of rethinking my project.

Suddenly the goal is no longer a goal.  Is that strange?

How does BOTH absolute and relative fit in to the burning cat example, for example?

Fair point.  Sometimes absolute, sometimes relative.  Either one results in pleasure.  In the case of the burning cat, it’s relative.

I just can’t…

[Read more]

Here’s the basis of my theory of why people enjoy hurting others.  It ties up:

– the theory of emotions, where moving closer to a goal results in positive feelings (i.e., pleasure).

– the theory of natural selection, where fitness benefits are both absolute and relative.

– the theory of the pressure to thrive, where thriving = both achieving…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
What “advantage” (benefit) does one derive from killing a person or a cat?

The advantage is relative.  Natural selection selects for relative advantage over others.  Fitness benefits, where natural selection smiles on us, result in pleasure.  Here’s a quote from Frans de Waal, which maybe explains it better.

Natural selection works…

[Read more]