Lumidaub @ Lumidaub @feddit.org

she/her, A(u?)DHD, German (linksgrünversifft), fanartist. Likes Doctor Who

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

808

Joined

8 mo. ago

I have given an alternative explanation for the existence of morality which is in line with current science, such as our understanding of evolution. This, at the very least, disproves your notion that there is no other explanation for morality than religion and spirituality. It may not prove that religion and spirituality ISN'T the explanation, if that makes you happy. I refuse to go into broader topics such as the entirety of human behaviour.

I have made my point, you just don't want to accept it.

You may want to answer my question “When did you learn that hurting was wrong and who taught you?” again considering you were a baby without definable consciousness.

People rarely learn stuff all at once but gradually and in stages.

You are free to provide examples if you want me to agree with you.

I guess I won't provide any examples then.

I read that wrong, I apologise for the snark.

You're human, you know examples.

Which means that spiritual and religious belief structures would have been required for us to advance to where we are today, which was my entire point, based on your idea of “inherent”. Even though again, nothing is “inherent” regarding moral belief.

That does not follow from what I said.

Yes I am sure the first time you were hurt as a baby, before conscious thought even kicked in, you suddenly knew what was "morally correct".

I did not say that.

There is no such thing as "inherent" traits. If that were true no human would hurt another human because we all would be coded not to do that and wouldn't need someone to tell you what is wrong and right.

There are, believe it or not, more things besides empathy that determine human behaviour. Weird, complicated creatures.

If all evidence suggests that groups of humans have all had a spiritual belief structure I think it is safe to assume that as a requirement for a consistent, and easy to communicate "moral code".

That just means humans also have an inherent wish to understand and explain things, even when they don't have the necessary means yet.

Edit: typo

When did you learn that hurting was wrong and who taught you?

The first time something hurt me and I didn't like it.

My human, inherent empathy then led me to the conclusion that I don't want other people to be hurt needlessly. Yes, empathy is indeed inherent and has evolutionary roots. I absolutely can't explain that entire framework here, you could read The Selfish Gene for example.

And to determine that, "I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me" and "does this hurt someone?" isn't enough as a starting point?

Define "morality".

Good lord, where to start.

Tuxedo Kamen was a big one when I was around 13.

Several David Tennant characters, such as of course and predictably the 10th Doctor - this might just be the mandatory DT crush.

The 13th Doctor - an outlier, still on-going.

Vegeta. Which is weird because I usually like my men very tall. The Vegeta/Bulma ship was stronger than the crush.

Sam Winchester (tall). I'm so glad my Supernatural phase has ended, let me tell you.

These days I'm crushing a bit on Johnny Silverhand.

Would it help if I told you that his particular brand of humour stops being the focal point after a bit? Iirc it doesn't last into the second season and is then replaced by actually thoughtful storytelling with light humour sprinkled on top.

"Using just the internet no interaction with people but keep it cash" wat

Goodness, me neither, I'd hate that. It wouldn't be my insurance info that I'm pulling up, but stuff like medication that I'm taking that might be relevant for first responders to know or emergency contact information (I presume they'd ask for these things if I'm conveniently conscious).

That's already happening and people are very mad about it because they think the plants are going to eat them.

I think you just invented communism?

Alright. Sounds like bullshit that you're going to have to deal with, whether or not we're facing the AI apocalypse, and I sympathise.

I don't even really know what a 401k is, I'm not from the US. The fact that globally social security systems are failing due to neglect and tax gifts for the rich is a whole other issue.

That doesn't mean much. If a person is too old to learn a new job, they should be able to retire. If a person's cognitive ability is THAT low, so low they can't learn the simplest of jobs, they should probably be in some care facility or (better) be cared for at home with their caretakers (who've had proper training) receiving adequate compensation. Why are we talking, in this context, about people who are unable to work anyway?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much against what we've come to call "AI" and how it's taking over everything.

What does "can't be trained for a new job" mean? Why? What's keeping them from learning a new thing?

They did want it to be the new PDF.

I did chuckle at the notion but honestly, I have information stored on my phone that would come in handy in this situation. So yeah, I'd be on my phone, pulling up documents.

Babies also don't just pop into existence.