Of course all words are in a way abstract. But there is a difference between birchwood kitchen a

Paul P on 14 August 2014 at 06:35 PM: "In the future they might be, but I doubt that abhorrent birchwood kitchen (to us) things would happen suddenly, or even at all. The zeigeist would in any case ease everyone into it".
I'm not sure everyone would agree with that. Some would say that it's just changing rather than getting better. Again, it depends what's "moral" really. As Dermot Doyle said, the ancient Israelites would be absolutely abhorred to find themselves transported into this present day morass of immorality . We would find them immoral (due to some of their more ruthless punishments) but, they too, would find us immoral. In the same way, future generations will probably look down on us for something or other (we know not what), but if we were transported to their time, the feeling would almost birchwood kitchen certainly be more than mutual. So, who s to say its getting better?
"Our scheme of morality is founded on evolution-provided birchwood kitchen instincts. As I've said before here, when homo erectus became homo sapiens (greatly simplified here) humankind moved away from 'me first' to 'others as well' .This had nothing whatever to do with goodness and badness. It had everything birchwood kitchen to do with a more prolifically producing, and more successfully surviving, population because of this 'revolutionary' instinct".
Yes, much gratitude for that Evolution 101 talk. That's why I only said *some* of these instincts are no different to superstition. The vast majority are still important birchwood kitchen and necessary to us. Some are not.
I would say the same to adeledicnander, who posted on 14 August 2014 at 06:20 PM: "Instincts are unrelated to superstition. Helping another in distress is within birchwood kitchen the capacity of an ant, provided it is helping the same sort of ant".
I would agree with the last part, but we are a bit more developed than ants. We are now aware of our own instincts and we know that not all of them are necessary all of the time to help us survive. The instinct to help another in distress will, presumably, always be necessary (unless modern technology renders it pointless), so of course it can't be ignored. birchwood kitchen Some instincts *can* be ignored. If you look at the original subject of this blog entry, you will see it is a perfect example of females ignoring maternal instincts. This is why I keep bringing up the example of killing your own small child (outside the womb in this case), because maternal feelings are a perfect example birchwood kitchen of an instinct that can be ignored. It is not always a necessary or important instinct birchwood kitchen to survive. A bit like superstition.
Of course all words are in a way abstract. But there is a difference between birchwood kitchen a 'meaning' and, say, a 'dictionary'. I can hold, tear, burn or trample on a dictionary, probably because it is a material object.
But I have to admit I've never tried to do that with a 'meaning' - I'll have to try it some day. Perhaps you've tried already. If so I'd birchwood kitchen like to know the result. Then we can discuss abstracts again.
But there are abstractions and abstractions, sir. All words - and especially all common substantives birchwood kitchen and all verbs are abstractions, for they are used to represent classes of things or actions. To call Rover a "dog", for example, is to see him as representative birchwood kitchen of a class of visible and tangible things which encompasses both the Chihuahua birchwood kitchen and St Bernard or the German Shepherd.
When we refer however to a person's "character", we are abstracting a concept from a visible and tangible thing - originally an engraved or impressed mark or stamp - and seeking to see such a thing in a person.
Even more abstracted is "morality" - beautifully brought down to earth again from the stratosphere of abstractions by GK Chesterton birchwood kitchen who said that it meant "drawing the line somewhere"
The word "problem" means simply 'thing put forward' and I find it very difficult to perceive what degree birchwood kitchen of abstraction you may see in "summaries" and "meaning" and - wait for it! - "part", if you please!
"You sidestep the fact that future democratic processes may decide birchwood kitchen things that would be morally reprehensible to both of us. But, in your view, since democracy decides morality, it would automatically be right, wouldn't it?"
In the future they might be, but I doubt that abhorrent (to us) things birchwood kitchen would happen suddenly, or even at all. The zeigeist would in any case ease everyone into it. In a general sense (I refered you to Stephen Pinker's book) things are getting more moral from our point of view than less moral, so we'd more likely birchwood kitchen approve the moral future than not - particularisms notwithstanding.
Our scheme of morality is founded on evolution-provided instincts. As I've said before here, when homo erectus became homo sapiens (greatly simplified he