cellular activity = converting energy
so youre against overpopulation but you think its alright that the east asians whose civilization is based on hierarchical tyranny have 3b people?
i dont want to speak with you eitherWhere the hell did this come fromI'm norwegian btw. Lower effort than previous post but I have no desire to continue this conversaiton
Why exactly?
Can you not read?
"the thing as it acts"
cause God is real, and because by his nature he is goodness itself and created the world composed of things with telos. meaning that moral facts exist independent of mind
highT
That's what I thought.
"which define the essence of a thing as it acts." This is pretty obviously saying the essence of a thing is the way it behaves, you are just phrasing it with metaphysical baggage that is unnecessary but wtv.
Good thread did read. I know rape is only 5% glad you accounted for that with a high IQ response
having rational capacity means having a reason for something. a retard might want to make a hysterical sound because they feel good when annoying people ariund them, that is a retarded but rationally derived decision
Is there any argument that supports objectivity that doesn't hinge on God? I get that for objective morality to exist, there must be an unbiased lawgiver, and an unbiased lawgiver cannot be human, as humans are biased (protection of self-interest, etc).
If God doesnt exist there is no inherent morality in the universe but as the universe can not reasonably have existed and much less so life and even mucher lesser so consciousness we can assume God does exist
Key word assume, we still have no definitive answer. I don't know which is scarier: God or an infinitely existing universe.
You guys introduce so much more than you prove. Why wouldn't reason to do something include animals? What about an AI that can recursively reason and exhibits intelligence?
you are legitimately the most cucked jeet in all jeetstory to ever jeet, there is no way on this green earth that you geniuenly believe Kroes fogs Mazza unless you suffer from severe mental retardation
I guess essence in the simplest way is just the principles that make a thing what it is. And I have to clarify that it's not behaviors themselves, but the things that ground behaviors.
Literally nothing lol. I agree with the premise that "morality" is just whatever gets your feelers tingling if there is no God.
i have no clue what you are saying please rephrase
Its artificial (meaning nonbiological) so we assume it is unconscious as it would not make sense for us limited creatures to be able to create consciousness in any way other than the one God meant for us
Animals have a sensitive soul, they can "reason," (figure out how to get food lol) but can they abstract concepts? Can they understand universal truths? Can they reason about reason? Etc.
I think you can prove the existence of God, but I know most people nowadays just reject metaphysics entirely cause of (funnily enough) their own faith in logical positivism
morda cipo
bo zaraz klasykiem polecę
I just don't have faith at the moment, and I get that the whole point of spirituality is to have faith.
Sure that's fine. We can say nature is what grounds behavior.
also I like argumentation ethics, I think it can go as far as to say that aggression (which includes abortion) at least results in a performative contradiction. obviously not anywhere near moral facts as they exist in the divine mind, but i still like it
liquidzulu.github.io
Animals are seemingly conscious and have subjective goal directed behaviors, yet you don't value animals presumably.
Yeah I feel you bro. I've never really had some intense spiritual feeling, I started believing at least in part because of what you mention, the infinitely existing universe. People always posit some multiverse or B theory of time or infinite temporal regress to get out of a single creator, and that pushed me to look at more arguments
bro I concede to all that you say, yes they are conscious, yes they have goal directed behaviors, they are not capable of the things I listed that are unique to humans tho. if they were, then they would be human under my definition lol
Yeah this just runs into the same problem but if you dropped the rationality part you have a better argument if you just say that God ensouled us with moral value and that morality is God's nature.
also definining rationality was probably more important than essence lol
I have yet to find an argument that proves the existence of God completely but what makes me believe in God is:
A healthy human being will be rational, that's just a fact. It's what defines you and I, and no defect is ever proof to the contrary. The essence IS universal, but rationality itself is not.
But you'd also say that a human with a brain defect and with no abstract thought has moral worth, if that's the case then we have a human being valued despite having no grounding for rational thought. There is no way for this person to be rational unless their identity was changed by either adding or removing properties. The rational part is therefore almost completely irrelevant. By adding it in you actually make the ui defeatable. Whereas the other argument is basically unfalsifiable
Without a cerebral cortex and thalamus connection there is no possibility of any conciousness though. I would also be consevatuve about it if the science wasn't so concluding. All animals shown to display any sort of conciousness have that brain connection. When we do animal experiments and cut it, then the animal loses their conciousness. When we pass out, our thalamus cortext connection is either severely impaired or compleately dysfunctional. Even when the fetus has that connection, we are not sure if it has conciousness or not. However, when it doesn't have it, we know that they don't experience anything. You are free to hold your opinion anyway, but thats kinda the whole argument behind the clump of cells thing. People don't think its justified for other reaons too though, like this thread suggests
I'm not well-informed on the topic ig, but wouldn't having the possibility for the growth of a cerebral cortex and thalamus connection be an argument against aborting. It's not like euthanizing someone who's brain dead because the fetus will inevitably gain those things.Without a cerebral cortex and thalamus connection there is no possibility of any conciousness though. I would also be consevatuve about it if the science wasn't so concluding. All animals shown to display any sort of conciousness have that brain connection. When we do animal experiments and cut it, then the animal loses their conciousness. When we pass out, our thalamus cortext connection is either severely impaired or compleately dysfunctional. Even when the fetus has that connection, we are not sure if it has conciousness or not. However, when it doesn't have it, we know that they don't experience anything. You are free to hold your opinion anyway, but thats kinda the whole argument behind the clump of cells thing. People don't think its justified for other reaons too though, like this thread suggests
"dnr"
I mean that kinda depends on your world view. I don't think any life is inheritly positive and as long as nothing suffers, there is no reason for the life to be created in the first place. I am not an antinatalist by any means, but if the mother doesn't want to have the child I think its better for both parts if they don't. Its not fair to the future child to be born by a mother and/or family who doesn't want it. I think of aborting a child as a child neutral, and birthing a child can be positive or negative depending on the mindset of the parents (and partially financial situation) I kinda used this argument earlier, but to me; If you think that as much life as possible should be created, then it would only be morally consistent to desire an ever-rising human population.
Should be water but we live in feminist times
