Zephyr20x6's Waterfall
Romantic love is a chemical reaction, as well as something similar to a drug, as well as something we need as healthy human beings, as well as a state of consciousness, love also is a degree or intensity of likeness to someone, which can be rather arbitrary and different for everyone, though what one might call "love" may be healthier then what another one calls "love", I think love is best, as Mucka put it, an intense feeling of likeness of someone to the point where you feel as though you want to spend your life with that person (at least at that moment).
Oh no, definitely not, it is wonderful question, and one of GREAT importance. I would be against abortion in cases where the fetus has developed consciousness, so understanding when consciousness develops should be something we contemplate on. In fact in asking that question and needing to find a source (I don't keep my sources, I really should) again on when consciousness takes place, I found an extremely informative source, with good amount of credibility it seems, so you have essentially contributed to my substantiation on this issue. I fear as though I might come off a little cold, or hostile to people when I debate them, so if you ever feel that way, let me know so I can address it :)
Then, knock yourself out, if it is going to die anyway, then if anything, it would be better to abort it, assuming abortion would be less painful.
night at the roxbury :)
Around the 20th week does a fetus develop the capacity to feel pain and obtain memories, that is essentially where I think a good marker for the development of consciousness should be. Which is about 4 and a half months. Most states have it up to 25, and a couple have it to 26, but none higher than that. I think pain should be the biggest factor that should determine conscious life, because sentience differentiates from intelligence, when something can actually FEEL, a dislike for something. http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3/
I find it funny that when a man does it, he is objectifying women to a degree (whether minor or major), but when a women does it, it is direct insult to characteristics that are typically associated with men.
I think the dynamic between men and women is rather instinctive and animalistic in nature, where men are generally more the predator, and women are often the prey. In a sense this does kind of make them "lower" than us, not really in my opinion, but I suppose in a sense. That can and does take place, while the "predator" ultimately respects the "prey" as an equal. However equivalence is not necessarily exact sameness, and the way men treat women differently, has had its contributions from women as well, as well as they treat men differently to. I do think in the long run that we associate women with animalistic expressions in these situations more often then the other way around, but it still happens, for instance "you dog, you!" Ultimately though, I feel that these expressions aren't necessarily bad, after all we are animals, and women are completely free themselves to do the same if they truly want total sameness, as long as both partners ultimately respect each other as equals should be the real concern.
To be honest, we do kind of see animals as inferior to humans. We don't want to test on other humans if tests are dangerous, but we have no problem with testing on other animals as long as those tests are as careful as possible. When we farm animals, we treat them horribly in some farms, giving them no room to strive and live happily before their quick deaths. If an animal was going to die and a human was going to die, which one do you think you would most likely end up saving? Assuming you knew nothing of either of them? ...
No, because it begs the question, that god exists in the first place, and more than just a god, an omniscient, omnipotent one at that. Mental illnesses is not evidence for God's cruelty, mental illness is evidence of a mental illness. If a omnipotent, omniscient god does exist, then honestly, yes it would be evidence of God's cruelty.
https://www.youtube.com/
I did not understand a thing you were saying...
I think the restriction should simply be, to not allow the procedure after detection of sentience.
Would you mean a sentimental, or compassionate bond specifically?
wait, actually no... that's not how it works... converse statements, (which you learn about in geometry, are the reverse of if-then statements. "life exists on earth" is not the converse of "life exists on other planets". If X, then Y is true, that does not necessarily mean, If Y, then X, though it could...
I don't think it works that way, I am pretty sure it is many chemical reactions within the brain. So no, not just one, unless I am mistaken, I am not an expert on the brain. However my point wasn't that, my point was, that not all chemical reactions result in thoughts, just because one or many does. I also don't think we ever observed chemical reactions resulting in thought outside of a brain, so it most likely needs a brain.
The alternative is that murder is only wrong if someone feels sad about it.
Murder is considered wrong because it is taking the life away from another person, which as compassionate beings, we don't want that to happen. emotional appeal.
Murder is inherently wrong because to live is positive. It has to be positive because it is something that every human being naturally strives for. Survival is hardwired in to every cell in our body. Therefore, to deny something that every human being is striving for (irrespective of that individuals conscious desires) is, prima facie, immoral.
Can you give me a logic as to how taking away what someone strives for is immoral, without it being an emotional appeal?
Just because consciousness is a product of chemical reactions, doesn't necessarily mean that all chemical reactions result in consciousness. Just because a statement is true, doesn't mean the converse is true. For example: "if it snows enough, then school will be cancelled" is in most places at least here in america, true, but "if school is cancelled, then it must have snowed enough" is not true, because school can be cancelled for other reasons then snow. So it would be fallacious to think "If something produces thoughts, then it probably is producing those thoughts via chemical reactions" doesn't mean that "If chemical reactions take place, then it is probably producing thoughts."
wait a second, you are agreeing with me XD, I got my sides mixed up... Silly me... I agree with you then for the most part.
What we need is also what we want. We form them because we need them to advance socially. We advance socially because we want to. Needs are simply more highly prioritized wants.
But how do we form those social contracts? People have different social contracts, and that is an inquiry of morality, which contracts are more moral? For example I can hold a social contract that we should not tell white lies to save people's feelings while another holds the social contracts that white lies should be told to save people's feelings, either of these have different reasoning as well as different emotional appeals, one is an emotional disturbance of hurting someone's feelings, another is emotional disturbance of being dishonest. Also you have to take into account times where oppression took place, if an African American man back in the old days refused to be subservient he (or she) is breaking a social contract, would you call that immoral? Wouldn't social contracts come from emotional appeal? I'm intruiged by you mentioning a social contract theory, is that a thing beyond this site or were you referring to my related response in your debate?
I think morality is something that we have evolved, something that we have obtained via our evolution. All morality really is, is judgements on how one should act, this is important because how people conduct themselves has a strong impact on the social environment around us. I think morality is extremely naturalistic thing. Morality requires emotional appeal at least for morality to be efficient. My moral opposition to murder is based on an emotional appeal, emotional appeal to my compassion (I don't like the idea of seeing other people die, it emotionally disturbs me), emotional appeal to selfishness (If my social environment is alright with people murdering each other, I am significantly more likely to be murdered), and empathy which connects our selfishness and compassion, (if I can feel another's pain, that will activate my capacity for compassion, and my capacity for selfishness, I will feel more emotionally disturbed by their pain because my mind allows me to feel their pain, and it will remind me why I don't want people to be ok with it, because I don't want to feel that pain myself). Our emotions in my opinion are a byproduct of our evolution, our emotions come from our mind, of which itself had to evolve.
If we do anything at all for this consideration, make a restroom that isn't gender specific so people can choose to still go to gender specific restrooms.
Consideration of evidence is the only activity (I know of) by which beliefs are formed. Perhaps you know something of the process of belief formation that I am ignorant of. Please help me if you believe this to be the caseYou have to use logic to show how the evidence is sufficient for making it a probability rather than a possibility, if I directly observe something, would you not consider that sufficient evidence of it's own existence? What about self-evident? Yeah it is through considering evidence, but it is through considering if evidence is sufficient, no?That is a case differing interpretation of the same evidence or having noticed different evidenceBut one's interpretation can more logical than the other'sThen to not try would be immoral according to that standard.Or perhaps better, would be it is immoral to not have your certainty equate to the amount of evidence (as well as using logic to conclude how sufficient the evidence is, for impossibility, improbability, propability, and possibility) to the best of your abilities.You mean those who don't feel obliged to be persuasive to others?I mean exactly what I said, those who don't try to enhance their way of thinking, or use critical thinking. (critical thinking concerns how we think).Intentional ignorance would be refusing to consider someone else's viewpoint, but alas we can't make time with everyone. Intentional ignorance was actually misdefined by me in my opinion, ignorance should only be concerned as a lack of knowledge. Those whom are intentional dull, the opposite of critical thinking. Anti-critical thinking.Avoiding challenges to what we think to be true is surely unwise in many cases, but since we have no choice but to live according to what we think is true, we have to prioritize what's most important to be right about.But there is no reason in thinking something that we have no reason to think is right, if we don't have the time to see if something is true, don't think it is either true or false then.Surrounding ourselves with caring people, and truths about how to do that, rightly rate pretty high IMHOI consider that really important, but I also consider not deviating from reality important as well.What's bad is bad, of course, but to be immoral one must intentionally violate a specific code of conduct.Well, we have different ideas of what morality is then...These standards are based on what's supposedly good and/or bad, not necessarily what actually is.They are actually about what is good and/or bad, to hold a belief not based on any facts or reason, can effect us to act in a way that deviates from reality. Like in the boat example, he deviated from reality slightly, by assuming his boat wasn't going to break down after a length of time, and sailing off. That is bad because I am potentially putting people's lives at risk this way. Or if I was a politician, and didn't base my beliefs on sufficient evidence (and reasoning). Or if I thought someone was going to pull a prank on me on insufficient evidence, and that thought caused me to do something stupid.
granted, evidence by itself doesn't support anything, until you apply logic to it, until you explain how the evidence supports you. But belief can still be on sufficient evidence, it just needs to be on sufficient logic as well.
