6124 pts · July 16, 2015
Just scroll to the next, it’s not that hard
Idk why 3 copies of the comment got posted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There doesn’t need to be a notion or presupposition that thriving is good. Evolution merely biases traits that lead to more reproduction. Humans that thrive more can reproduce more it’s as simple as that, and they pass on those same traits. There’s no need for anyone to “believe” that thriving is good or right or that everyone has to agree to want to do it. It’s natural selection. There’s nothing that says we all evolved in the same direction, but just that cooperation was more effective not.
You *believe* it is because of “God”, it’s not something anyone can *know* as it is not provable/disprovable.
Also, if that was the case that god gave everyone the same sense of right and wrong why is everyone’s slightly different? Some people make decisions that they believe to be right but others may believe to be wrong. Why could god not make everyone on earth have the same moral values? This doesn’t violate free will as you would still be able to choose whether to commit a good or bad act, just that everyone would be in agreement including that person that it was good or bad.
See my comment above, but this can also be just as well explained by biology (better in fact), you are making an assumption that it was god.
because something is widely believed or accepted that it is objectively true. Or even make any assumptions about it or from it at all. Our opinions on something make no determinations on objective reality - assuming one exists.
That can be explained entirely as a consequence of biology rather than an indication of an objective morality. Early humans, and humans today, needed at least some levels of cooperation to live and thrive, behaviors which hurt the group for the benefit of an individual are to be shunned and considered bad as they harm the progress of the group/species. If we did not consider those things bad innately then perhaps the human race would not have been so successful. You can’t just assume that
There are certain things that we generally agree are good or bad, but that doesn’t necessarily make them so. Over history (and in different societies still) various things are considered good or bad (or neutral) but that doesn’t mean there is anything objective about it. Just because society all believes one thing is good doesn’t mean that thing is objectively good. So no, there isn’t just some objective good just because of that or because you believe it exists.
of the person experiencing it, not some outside observer. If you only had 1 day to exist, and it was a bad day then your entire existence was bad and that 1 day mattered the most to you. If you have an infinite number of days to exist with a finite number of bad (life on earth) and an infinite number of good (heaven) then your existence would be good. Your finite time spent on earth would have no consequence on your overall existence (again assuming you do the bare minimum to get into heaven).
It does actually, believing in an eternal after life means any actions beyond the bare minimum required to get you into Heaven has no meaning at all. If you fully believe in god and do all the responsibilities required to get into heaven you could be put into a coma and at the scale of eternity it would not matter at all. Whereas if you only have your life on earth it would absolutely matter. It is not significantly less valuable just because it is finite vs infinite, it’s from the perspective
eternity. Whereas if there is no god and no heaven/hell, nothing will exist before or after your life, so there are finite choices in a finite amount of time. Everything that you do, or happens to you will matter to your life, since that’s all there is an all there ever will be for you.
Conscience and morality are personal by definition, why does there have to be an objective right and wrong? Doing what you believe to be for the greater good doesn’t require for there to actually be an objective good, just a subjective one that you believe in. As for nothing mattering if there’s no god you could argue the complete opposite as well. If there is a god the only things that matter are the minimum set of activities, beliefs, etc to get into heaven. Nothing else would matter for
Yes, they’re both wrong
Whether you’d like to admit it or not, collective punishment is a war crime. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment#:~:text=Collective%20punishment%20is%20a%20war,Conventions%20and%20Additional%20Protocol%20II.
No, because you’re assuming that everyone who hits a guardrail is a shitty driver, which is clearly not the case
Everyone downvoted you because to everyone but you apparently it is obvious it is not a chatbot. Of course there’s a chance that it could be a chatbot and the rest of us are wrong, but you taking that chance and running with it doesn’t mean it’s a likely outcome.
C) Elon Test is not responding in a narrow manner, they are using idioms, referencing comments made in multiple posts at the same time, and being specific yet relevant to the conversation D) If it were a chat bot it would be a very good one as it is able to handle all of the above I just mentioned, however if it were really such a good chat or you’d think they’d have been able to remove at least such blatant racism from its responses.
Just scroll to the next, it’s not that hard
Idk why 3 copies of the comment got posted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There doesn’t need to be a notion or presupposition that thriving is good. Evolution merely biases traits that lead to more reproduction. Humans that thrive more can reproduce more it’s as simple as that, and they pass on those same traits. There’s no need for anyone to “believe” that thriving is good or right or that everyone has to agree to want to do it. It’s natural selection. There’s nothing that says we all evolved in the same direction, but just that cooperation was more effective not.
There doesn’t need to be a notion or presupposition that thriving is good. Evolution merely biases traits that lead to more reproduction. Humans that thrive more can reproduce more it’s as simple as that, and they pass on those same traits. There’s no need for anyone to “believe” that thriving is good or right or that everyone has to agree to want to do it. It’s natural selection. There’s nothing that says we all evolved in the same direction, but just that cooperation was more effective not.
There doesn’t need to be a notion or presupposition that thriving is good. Evolution merely biases traits that lead to more reproduction. Humans that thrive more can reproduce more it’s as simple as that, and they pass on those same traits. There’s no need for anyone to “believe” that thriving is good or right or that everyone has to agree to want to do it. It’s natural selection. There’s nothing that says we all evolved in the same direction, but just that cooperation was more effective not.
You *believe* it is because of “God”, it’s not something anyone can *know* as it is not provable/disprovable.
Also, if that was the case that god gave everyone the same sense of right and wrong why is everyone’s slightly different? Some people make decisions that they believe to be right but others may believe to be wrong. Why could god not make everyone on earth have the same moral values? This doesn’t violate free will as you would still be able to choose whether to commit a good or bad act, just that everyone would be in agreement including that person that it was good or bad.
See my comment above, but this can also be just as well explained by biology (better in fact), you are making an assumption that it was god.
because something is widely believed or accepted that it is objectively true. Or even make any assumptions about it or from it at all. Our opinions on something make no determinations on objective reality - assuming one exists.
That can be explained entirely as a consequence of biology rather than an indication of an objective morality. Early humans, and humans today, needed at least some levels of cooperation to live and thrive, behaviors which hurt the group for the benefit of an individual are to be shunned and considered bad as they harm the progress of the group/species. If we did not consider those things bad innately then perhaps the human race would not have been so successful. You can’t just assume that
There are certain things that we generally agree are good or bad, but that doesn’t necessarily make them so. Over history (and in different societies still) various things are considered good or bad (or neutral) but that doesn’t mean there is anything objective about it. Just because society all believes one thing is good doesn’t mean that thing is objectively good. So no, there isn’t just some objective good just because of that or because you believe it exists.
of the person experiencing it, not some outside observer. If you only had 1 day to exist, and it was a bad day then your entire existence was bad and that 1 day mattered the most to you. If you have an infinite number of days to exist with a finite number of bad (life on earth) and an infinite number of good (heaven) then your existence would be good. Your finite time spent on earth would have no consequence on your overall existence (again assuming you do the bare minimum to get into heaven).
It does actually, believing in an eternal after life means any actions beyond the bare minimum required to get you into Heaven has no meaning at all. If you fully believe in god and do all the responsibilities required to get into heaven you could be put into a coma and at the scale of eternity it would not matter at all. Whereas if you only have your life on earth it would absolutely matter. It is not significantly less valuable just because it is finite vs infinite, it’s from the perspective
eternity. Whereas if there is no god and no heaven/hell, nothing will exist before or after your life, so there are finite choices in a finite amount of time. Everything that you do, or happens to you will matter to your life, since that’s all there is an all there ever will be for you.
Conscience and morality are personal by definition, why does there have to be an objective right and wrong? Doing what you believe to be for the greater good doesn’t require for there to actually be an objective good, just a subjective one that you believe in. As for nothing mattering if there’s no god you could argue the complete opposite as well. If there is a god the only things that matter are the minimum set of activities, beliefs, etc to get into heaven. Nothing else would matter for
Yes, they’re both wrong
Whether you’d like to admit it or not, collective punishment is a war crime. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment#:~:text=Collective%20punishment%20is%20a%20war,Conventions%20and%20Additional%20Protocol%20II.
No, because you’re assuming that everyone who hits a guardrail is a shitty driver, which is clearly not the case
Everyone downvoted you because to everyone but you apparently it is obvious it is not a chatbot. Of course there’s a chance that it could be a chatbot and the rest of us are wrong, but you taking that chance and running with it doesn’t mean it’s a likely outcome.
C) Elon Test is not responding in a narrow manner, they are using idioms, referencing comments made in multiple posts at the same time, and being specific yet relevant to the conversation D) If it were a chat bot it would be a very good one as it is able to handle all of the above I just mentioned, however if it were really such a good chat or you’d think they’d have been able to remove at least such blatant racism from its responses.