Eugenics in Europe

Is slavery wrong?

Well, right. Morality is super-natural. I believe in the supernatural. That is to say I believe in the non-physical. Most people on the Earth believe god has laid out right and wrong explicitly already.

Just like nature/the universe in that case.

I didnā€™t ask for yours, just a single example. You keep claiming definitions exist but refuse to even offer a possibility for them. Do you not know of any though you claimed they exist?

Morality doesnā€™t have to be from a higher being, and I would argue that most peopleā€™s morals donā€™t follow exactly the ā€œwordsā€ of their higher being (I use quotes around the word ā€œwordsā€ because it is usually man-made text or word of mouth and not the direct words from that higher being). Usually their interpretation of those words, or picking and choosing what words they want to follow.

RIght. I mean supernatural here literally and without religious connotation. A higher being is not explicitly necessary. However morality is supernatural or not real. If you believe in morality, you believe in the supernatural. That is something outside the physical universe.

Ok, I misunderstood, but then am confused what you mean morality is supernatural.

Letā€™s say I donā€™t believe in anything outside of the physical universe, I only believe and care about what is in it (and for this purpose, Earth). If that is the case, I cannot believe in morality?

Because I would disagree. I think you can care about the happiness and well being of people/creaturesā€¦whatever, regardless of your belief in the supernatural. I may be misunderstanding again though.

All the things you mentioned caring about ( and even caring itself) arenā€™t natural parts of the universe.

Letā€™s try another way. If you only care about the actual physical universe, then the only actual knowledge is physics.

I mentioned happiness (an emotion) and well-being (you could take this as success of my tribe/species/family) and I would say both are found in nature with humans and other organisms as well.

Ok, so you are more talking about the physicality of things? Because even if you only believe in the physical universe, you can still get into social sciences and study behavior. Behavior is part of the natural world.

I think how we are using these words are making us talk past each other, so Iā€™ll let the point go as we are WELL off from what I thought you were saying (which was my misunderstanding).

Well, you can believe in the scientific explanation of morality/caring, but not the colloquial meaning. If there is only the physical everything pysical is perfectly explained by physics. Caring in this case would mean a predictive model for certain chemical reactions in your brain in the current imperfect nature on science. It would be explicitly superfluous in a perfect unified theory. If there is only physics, caring isnā€™t part of reality. There is no equation of caritude in physics.

Agreed, but Iā€™m not saying there is only physics.

Not sure if Iā€™m following your logic here.

When you say only physical, are you saying no emotions or consciousness? If thatā€™s the case I think I follow what you are saying, but I disagree and think you can believe in current beings inhabiting the known universe and recognize the emotions and consciousness of those beings. Because of those, you can then understand how they are influenced in good or bad ways depending on behavior.

Lol. Your needs + my caritude = happy PWI family

You said you only care about the physical. Do you then believe parts of the physical universe are outside of science?

In the physical universe, no not really. There are certain arrangements of particles we sometimes label as such. There in no physical thing ā€œemotionā€ in the universe.

There is no such thing as good or bad in the physical universe. You have to get your ideas for those things from somewhere else. Where do you get your ideas on right and wrong?

Definition of what? You can Google these definitions. Why should I post them and then have to argue about them afterward? They are what they are.

Do I believe slavery is and always was wrong? Yes.

Because you claimed them. If you can just google one, it should be super easy to prove your point.

So you believe in absolute morality?

No, but I guess it depends on what you mean by science. You previously said it was physics, and yes, I think there is more to the universe than physics, hence scientific studies in other disciplines.

I see why we are disagreeing. Thatā€™s fair, and I think we can leave it at this. I believe emotions exist within the natural universe.

Iā€™ll let you and Z get back to it, I appreciate the discussion and thank you for clarifying.

No. Moral sense may actually be a natural human behavior. Codifying it is a human creation. Regardless, morality is real and does exist.

No. What would be the source? The Bible which does not outlaw slavery?

If logic is subjective, we sure can be both right.

Both of us and neither of us are both being logical and illogical. Subjectivity takes away all the rules.


If logic is subjective as you said then the whole line of questioning is absolutely irrelevant. Everybody is right about everything all at the same time. And likewise everybody is wrong about everything all at the same time.

I donā€™t think you quite grasp the magnitude of the blunder you made saying logic is subjective. If logic it self is subjective than literally nothing matters, at all, ever. Nothing is right or wrong. 1+1=3 if I feel like it.

Take that statement to any local college or institution of higher learning. Demand to be heard by any member of the staff and insist that ā€˜logic is subjectiveā€™ and see how that conversation goes.


Now I am about to answer your question, but keep in mind my answer is irrelevent, if you donā€™t like it, in as much as your question is irrelevent, since itā€™s all subjective.

The world where logic itself is objective there are a list of arguments for the existence of God going all the way back from Plato to Aristotle, to Descartes, to Aquinas, to Kant and Spinoza, etc. That use logic and pure reason and have developed theistic arguments for the existence of God that have yet to be be disproven. Now not-disproven does not mean counter arguments do not exist, but they do not refute the a priori arguments for the existence of God. Now, this is absolutely different than religion. Believing in God, does not necessarily beget religion. Religion is an off-shoot of philosophy, where the answer to the God question is affirmative and hence the systems develop from there.

Now that would be if logic were objective. Since you stated logic is subjective, you have turned millenia of philosophy, thought, science, math, morality and ethics, high order logic, cosmology, etc. basically everything a sentient being can know, completely on itā€™s head and made everything completely irrelevent. Maybe a circle is square, or dog really means cat, depending on how I feel about it that day. You drove a freight train right through the very basis for any thought not concerning with basic survival, which does not matter, but does tend to be an urge.

I would submit your finding that ā€˜logic is subjectiveā€™ to the Nobel folks, but your findings have rendered them completely irrelevant. They have no objective model to determine who gets what, everybody wins and everybody loses.

Hey DD, I admire your determination, but I think youā€™re dealing with Zep levels of ā€˜flat-earthy-nessā€™.

Thatā€™s okay, I was just informed that logic, you know the objective process that allows sentient beings to know anything at all, turns out to be subjective and everybody is right and wrong all at the same time all the time.

We are dealing with next level shit. Good news, weā€™re always right. Bad news, so is everybody else.