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).

You got that right !

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 :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5G1FmU-ldg

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/ full/pr200950a.html

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/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

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.

although, one thought came to mind that might blow my theory away, and that is simply any equation without variables and that is the equation 1 + 1 = 2 (rather than 1a + 1a = 2a; a = apple). So the question comes up, can we know what one means without a variable? one could be one entire pie(P), or one slice of pie(p), but 1P =/= 1p, thus without a variable we can't know what 1 means, but still use it in logic: 1 + 1 = 2. So how is it we can use that logic without KNOWING what 1 is? I now realized it is because we still know what 1 is but just to a less extent, I know what 1 is in relative to what 2 is, if we apply no variables at all, then the equation is simply assuming that all the numbers are using the same variable, because if we only use one variable, then 2 will always be twice as one. So a thought that made me question my theory, but then I resolved it, just wanted to express it.

edit-continuation

If I imagine myself flying through outer space (without suffocating or as if I was flying within the earth's atmosphere) and I then imagine flying through the other kind of space (like "a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied." [google definition]) with a black background all around with lights sporadically placed in the background. Are these visualizations different at all? yet we would call it either of them and be correct, however when I imagine myself flying through outer space (without suffocating or anything of the like), my mind is simply leaving out details of space, knowledge about space, that would make it impossible. Essentially I am not imagining the vaccum of space at all, I'm imagining outerspace without it being a vaccum in the end. Imagination is just like logic but without knowledge (without the facts, which are crucial), and knowledge is different from logic as knowledge on it's own can't construct itself in my head, without logic, or without imagination for that matter. for example, all the fossils in the fossil record doesn't mean anything until I apply logic to it and come to the conclusion of their being evolution.

If this were the case, belief wouldn't be very diverse at all... or at the very least, what is true and false would be subjective. Who is more supported by evidence? scientists in biology, or creation scientists? What if you and me are both looking at a pink elephant, and you say the pink elephant doesn't exist, and I say it does, who is more supported by evidence?

It's impossible to believe something without sufficient evidence, so the question is rather moot.How so? What is two people have opposing beliefs? does the evidence support them both equally? What about creation scientists that believe evolution isn't a real thing? do they believe on sufficient evidence?Immorality is intentional violation of a specific moral code.

What if that moral code states that those should try to logically justify their beliefs as efficiently as possible?

Being in error about the truth of some proposition is never intentional, and therefore cannot be immoral.

Not necessarily true, there are those that refuse to truly pursue truth, those that blatantly don't want to be justified on why they think what is true as true. If someone refuses to substantiate their viewpoints, they are being intentionally ignorant, and intending to not challenge what they think is true. I would also challenge you on the intention part, I would argue that immorality can be unintended but is still immoral. Surely, things that happen even unintended that are bad behaviors are still bad behaviors right?

I am truly grateful you came onto this debate, you really did help me see a lot of potential problems with this stance that needed to be addressed, and thus helped me greatly with constructing my stance on it. I look forward to further interaction with you.

What I am saying is to not know when it will sink and it is totally obvious is immoral. If there is a huge leak and water everywhere, and you still believe it won't sink, immoral. If there is a beam that is loose, but it is so heavy you can't move it, but one huge wave will knock it loose, not immoral.

Good point. I suppose, in order to need evidence the boat won't sink, you need evidence the boat will sink in the first place. If I buy a brand new boat, in perfect condition, there is no reason to suspect that it will sink, thus I don't need evidence that it won't, because there is no evidence that it will. However the long you have said boat, the more evidence that would be that the boat will sink. I see what you are saying now, and that is important to take into consideration.

Like you said, it is inevitable. The boat will eventually sink. There will be damage. If we look into something more complicated, like planes, we will find that there are so many things that can go wrong.

True, as long as you are aware of how probable X is, and the people that X could effect is notified, then there is no moral responsibility on you, if something goes wrong, as long as you know the possibility and all parties involved know as well, then you are not morally responsible for what is go wrong.

The difference in believing in the possiblity, and simply believing in any actual claim, is the amount of certainty you have in that claim. Everything is possible until shown otherwise, possible just means "it could be" is that agreeable? " it can be" is true of anything until we see how it "can't be". However thinking "it is" or thinking "it might be" is being more certain.

It becomes very difficult because most things are foreseeable, sort of.

I see your point, but to not check on the boat is assuming the boat can last so long, one should look into and learn how long his type of boat can last. It is foreseeable that the boat will eventually sink, to not know when it will sink, is in a sense immoral.

The problem is that it is time consuming to check every possible thing, plus it requires knowing exactly where to check before hand.

However, a good sailor does just that, takes time to learn how to spot anything that can be wrong with the boat, of course to try to match your certainty to the evidence, is definitely not something anyone can do perfectly, so we shouldn't expect anyone to do it as such, but to the best of their abilities.

After an incident you find out what happened and you start checking for that to prevent it from happening again.

If you wait for an such instance though, you are allowing the consequences.

Nope I don't have to believe anything is more than possible. I can believe in possibilities, my mind will instantly try to imagine possibilities in any given situation, however, to have any more certainty than that... well, it's not justified.

Yes, definitely. Imagination is the ability to visualize (I think Nebling may have given this definition in here already), to picture, to put together in our mind, to construct mentally, etc. Knowledge is pure data, facts, information, etc. Knowledge NEEDS imagination in order to imagine these facts, and imagination NEEDS knowledge, because if you have no data, what data in your mind, what information can you use to imagine? Everything I can imagine requires information about the things that I am imagining. For example, to imagine a dragon, I have to know what wings are, or at the very lest know what wind is, know about certain shapes, to imagine a body part that can help you fly, I need to know what scales and reptillian skin is, I need to know what fire is, breath is, and combine those. I need at least some amount of knowledge to use imagination, and imagination to have data. I argue that reason/logic is the product of imagination and knowledge. Logic is essentially visualizing data in a way that makes sense. For example, two apples plus two apples equals four apples, first I need KNOW what an apple is, I need to know what the number two means, in order to IMAGINE what combining two apples and two apples would mean, to have the capacity for that logic.

*edited

Ahh, I see my mistake, well in any case I think knowledge is more responsible, as we always had the capacity of a great imagination, we haven't always been knowledgeable or reasonable.

I do think that this dangerously borders thought crimes, however, I don't think the PEOPLE who hold beliefs are immoral, but that the belief itself is immoral. We all are immoral to a certain extent (littering can be considered immoral, and I've done it before). So while I think belief not matching the amount of evidence is immoral, the whole person doing as such isn't immoral, just guilty of doing something immoral, which is usually unintentional. (like littering).

You actually make a good point, because suspicion would require an extent of certainty, or a degree of belief, so perhaps it would be better argued that certainty should match the amount of evidence we have.

I mean it isn't available. If the evidence can't be gathered you are stuck with insufficient evidence.

I know that is what you mean, but if the evidence isn't available, then we still need a reason as to why we believe what we believe. If the evidence is available, then respectively justified belief isn't either.

For instance, in a murder investigation. A woman is dead. You find out she is married. As the investigator you believe the husband killed her because that is the easiest explanation. You go talk to the husband and find out he has an alibi. You no longer believe he killed her, but was it immoral to believe that before?

Very good scenario, I had to think for a second, but yes. I don't think the investigator should BELIEVE anything, he should only SUSPECT, or consider the possibility, investigate, then decide his beliefs. My definition of suspect here is consider something a potential possibility worth investigating.

How do you know what the right amount of evidence is?

That is a VERY good question Cartman. My answer is we have to rely on our ability to use logic, if it can be logically argued that the amount of evidence is sufficient, that is how we know.

In Clifford's boat example, the lack of evidence is immoral if the boat goes down, but fine if the boat stays afloat.

Clifford, actually argues that in either case it is immoral, because in either case he still put his men at risk for not making sure it hasn't worn down.

It is fine to say that the boat has never sunk, so it should be able to make it, assuming it has taken the number of people before.

Is it? As you have said, boats don't stay in good condition forever, of course if it sinks for the first time, it didn't sink before. They don't last forever, they require maintenance, logically sooner or later the boat will sink if it is never checked for still being in good condition.

Not having safety equipment because you believe the ship can't possibly sink would be immoral. Saying the boat has never sunk, so it definitely won't sink this time is immoral.

Agreed which is why one should look into the boats condition now and then.

.

everything else you have said, I agree on.

"What if there isn't evidence out there?"

Utterly no evidence at all what-so-ever, is insufficient evidence.

"Is it really immoral to have a belief based on a small amount of evidence if only a small amount of evidence exists?"

Not if you can argue how that small amount of evidence is sufficient.

Like I said to TheEccentric, without imagination, we would still be in the stone age.

The stone age was very imaginative, they just weren't reasonable, and were ignorant. Imagination wasn't their issue, they had a strong imagination.

You need knowledge on how to make it though, don't know you?

Reason is the product of imagination and knowledge, reason is more important then either imagination or knowledge. You can't have reason without accumulation of facts, or without being able visualize, when these two things combine, we get logic, reason, and critical thinking. This is my viewpoint on imagination and knowledge. Logic is the ability to imagine how all knowledge fits together.

*edited

In that case... I AM GOD!!! BOW DOWN TO ME!!! I AM YOUR RULER, AND EVERYTHING I SAY IS LAW AND CORRECT!!! I AM THUS MORALLY CORRECT TO SMITE YOU ALL!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! NO, I DO NOT HAVE A GOD COMPLEX! :P

That's what they all say.

Then they see a flawless argument and want to be worshipped in the philosophy community.

Ok? Have any substantiation to that? lol. I do genuinely want to advance my efficiency in thought, for class but for real life as well. If I see a "flawless" argument, (like one exists in philosophy...) then I will have to credit whomever made the argument as I will have to uphold it if it is truly flawless, if there isn't considered a potentially legit counter-argument against it in philosophy...

I do agree with that to an extent, although the philosophy of morality is an extremely conflicting thing for me, I do think that morality is subjective, however I also think that morality isn't meaningless because of such (as is generally argued in philosophy) so I agree with your point, and I love how you put it, because it is moralities tie to our emotional appeal that makes it subjective, however I also think that morality is something that we can substantiate even though it ties into emotional appeal. Our intentions of our moral frameworks are subjective, our reasoning on how to accomplish those goals are more capable of being substantiated than simply mere opinion. Although we aren't going over morality yet in my class, for personal reasons, and partially because I know I will be needing to contemplate morality in class eventually, I will be making debates soon about morality. I think morality can be argued, and can be debated, and people can have more substantiated moral frameworks than others depending on how well they pursue their moral goals. However in order to whose moral framework is more substantiated, we must first have some common ground on what we think morality should be about. If we share the moral goals of "to maximize humanities pleasure and minimize humanities pain" combined with "maximizing humans freedom equally for everyone, where my freedom doesn't breach your freedom", then we can argue whose moral point of view best substantiates on how we do just that.

You're input here was very helpful, my teacher did bring up the scenario of discussing what we learn in philosophy with friends and what not, seemingly implied there is nothing wrong with that. I shall consult my philosophy teacher and ask for his input, you gave me very good advice here thanks :)

How so? If I want to have my viewpoint challenged, isn't that what philosophy is all about? To train yourself to think more efficiently? Isn't that how philosophy is practiced? It would be bad, if I attempted to simply fish out arguments that I can use, and it would be extremely lazy on my part, but that is not what I would be using this site for, I would be using this site to challenge my way of thinking, not plagiarize other people's arguments.

Logic and evidence only get you so far in reasoning.

Logic and reasoning is practically synonymous, so that doesn't quite follow, it would be true to say evidence only gets you so far in reasoning. However the reverse is also true, that reasoning can only get so far, without evidence. In the end it doesn't change the fact that beliefs based on insufficient evidence (and logic, because we use logic to show how our evidence supports our beliefs) is consequential.

The evidently less probable option can be the true one.

I agree, however, the less probable option is by definition less likely to be true, and thus action based on said option is more likely to deviate from reality.

The less probable bet reaps higher rewards and you feel damn good when you bet against what logic told you to do and you win while your 'smart' friends lose to you.

that may be the case, and gambling isn't bad, rolling the dice isn't immoral, if it only effects yourself. I suppose that would be a really unique scenario, that makes the statement "belief on insufficient evidence is always immoral" not entirely true. That is one exception, but generally speaking, belief on insufficient evidence is consequential potentially to not only yourself, but to those around you.

It can even be betting on a higher power that will only reward those who bet on it in their lifetime and will eternally punish those who dared to use logic and evidence to justify their incorrect conclusion.

If some of these people, based on this belief though, are hassling others, trying to push pseudo-science into our schools, effecting our politics, morally conducting themselves based on this higher power, is that not a bad thing? If our basis for our conduct in reality is based on a belief, and if you try to detach the belief from the conduct of yourself in reality, you are still perpetuating the belief that alters how other people conduct themselves in reality.