Justin

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to sound condescending. I'm just saying that I think the people who didn't get that right away and took it literally didn't have the pleasure of enjoying the story as a metaphor and instead tried to enjoy it as an actual event that occurred long, long ago. Regarding whether they were neanderthals, I'm not sure. They explicitly said they were "cavemen" but I don't know if that means neanderthals. I also don't know if that means that maybe they weren't quite human and therefore weren't really trying to inform humanity with their learning experiences, therefore giving them some leeway with the story they told. Or maybe they went all out from an evolutionary perspective and made the implication that neanderthals and humans mated and created the species as we are today. Anyway, I'm sorry! I didn't mean to sound condescending! I was just happy I saw it and you saw it too! My bad! Oh! And regarding the dumb dad trope, I'm really glad they went with it where they did. He was "dumb" for a reason, a really good reason. He just hated new things. So the phenotype of his intelligence was dumb, but the genotype was exactly what was needed to survive, and he put a lot of effort into keeping his family alive because he loved them. The fact that he needed to change and made the effort to keep them alive by changing his perspective showed how much he loved them.

As soon as I realized it was a film not to be taken literally but actually intended to represent how cavemen and early humans would have reacted to something new, I was instantly fascinated. They did such a good job with this movie. Literally every moment of screen time is dedicated to how humans stuck to the ways that allowed them to survive or how they are now being required to venture into "New" territory in order to survive. The End, in my interpretation, is natural selection--it's what's pushing them forward to keep progressing or die. I think that's what the intro was basically stating. The Croods were the family that "made it" and their adventures were a metaphor for how humanity made it. There were a lot of powerful parts for me, including the "Hug, rhymes with Grug" scene, but, oddly, the football analogy was what let me know this movie was different. It contrasted today's sports so perfectly because, unlike team sports today, they lined up in formation and made plays for survival. They made the concept of a team important. That struck me so strongly that it made me hyper-aware of all of the other metaphors that were to come. Eep getting to know fire for the first time, seeing the curiosity in her eyes and actions was truly fascinating. When she was looking at it, I said to myself, "We're discovering fire for the first time." I felt like the movie went to extremely great lengths to make us feel like we were discovering the basics of human progress along with the Croods. There were some hilarious moments too. The kid, Thunk, wanting so hard to please his dad, being so happy with himself that he remembers not to leave the cave at night. And Nicholas Cage just had some hilarious moments throughout. The environment itself is exaggerated for metaphorical story-telling purposes. The predators in the film and the representation of "The End" were the stuff of nightmares. It's almost as if Dreamworks knew about my night terrors as a kid. The End was incredibly real to me, as though I've seen the same representation in my dreams as a child. It represents death; it represents the way you can't go if you want to survive; it's something that we are inherently aware of from a very early age. And the creatures are representative of the dangers you face along the way that you'll eventually have to tame if you want to keep moving toward tomorrow. Overall, I think the film does an extremely good job of representing the best of humanity, with some flaws thrown in (sometimes for comedic effect) for balance. I think this is a great film mainly due to the fact that it disregards magic and shows how family stays together through the absolute worst of times and uses their own humanity (or cavemanity) to progress. The scariest and yet most hopeful part of the movie is the ending. There's nothing to suggest that the world won't continue to end. They will continue to keep moving forward, learning, and adapting, doing exactly what they need to do in order to progress to where we, as humans, are today. This is my favorite film right now and I highly recommend it. 5 Stars. ***** Also, totally an Allegory of the Cave. I saw that in the first few minutes. That was another aspect that had me hooked right away.

Wondering if anyone has seen The Croods and what you thought of it. It's one of my favorite movies but I don't really want to say why with too many details until I see a bunch people have seen it and what they thought. I think it's probably one of the deepest and realest family movies I've ever seen. And the fact that there's no magic but rather it uses dreamlike environments makes it feel like it's tapping into my psyche. Anyone seen it? Liked it? Hated it?

Morality requires a free choice. In this scenario, there is no free choice. Someone is definitely going to die, whether it be one or 5, as are the typical numbers mentioned. Therefore, you can choose to minimize the destruction from a utilitarian perspective, but since utilitarianism is not necessarily a valid moral viewpoint (it's subjective as to what is actually a better outcome for a situation, society, etc.) then the question is not really one of morality but rather aesthetics. The question of morality would be the same if a shooter said to you, "I'll give you the choice. If you say nothing, I'll shoot 5 people. If you say 'don't shoot anyone,' I'll just kill your friend, who isn't a part of the original 5." In this other scenario, the choice isn't really yours either. Someone is going to die anyway. Morally speaking, your choice is arbitrary--it's not up to you whether anyone dies. The only thing you can attempt to do is lead the outcome to something you subjectively prefer. The only difference between the shooter scenario and the trolley scenario is that there is a moral actor who we can pin all of the blame on in the shooter scenario--and it's also much more obvious that no one would blame you for either choice. There is no moral actor we can pin the blame on in the trolley scenario. This erroneously leads people to believe that this is a moral dilemma, whereby when you put a person actor as the cause of the tragedy and not random happenstance, the moral agency clearly falls on that actor. Therefore, this is not a moral dilemma. Like others of have said, this is mental masturbation to get us to stop talking about real morality when we should be talking about things we actually have control over.

Thanks. You're right about trying to cram in UPB. But I don't think you could really debate against Harris effectively without using the principles of UPB. Also, thank you for reminding me about the podcast. I shall attempt to fall asleep to it.I'm hoping he's not going to fall into Bill Maher camp of people who annoy me that they call themselves libertarian. I think everyone here has really great points. Thanks for even humoring me about this. It helps me to think on it. I think I'm going to experience peaks and troughs of excitement about this. Since I do like Sam Harris, I'll probably read the book as well to finally get into it.

A) As soon as I get home, I'm going to listen to that podcast because regardless of the statism aspect, that sounds like it could be an awesome interview, as well as one that would make me froth at the mouth while yelling at him through my computer--so, either way, it's something that will keep me stimulated. B) I changed my mind about morality before I changed my mind about statism--I was definitely a "moral statist" before I was a moral anarchist. It's just really exciting to see a prominent thinker be this excited about morality as well as the showing the prospect of maybe changing his mind. Have him say to himself rather than an argument say it to him: "Well wait a second, this implies anarchy!" Well of course it does; the individual and his/her interactions with other individuals necessarily come before the state, and the state is obviously not an arbiter of morality any more than it is an arbiter of science, so you must accept the possibility that morality may contradict statism and move from there." But all that comes after the rebuttal, after his reading, and after he decides to start a conversation. I think he can be moved, is all. I don't see it out of the realm of possibility. Anyway, like I said, I'm less concerned about his statism than I am excited about his openness to a moral discussion. I haven't yet convinced myself otherwise that this would not be worthy of pursuit. I may just be more of a fan of Sam Harris than others. Thank you for your response. I'm making a case for it like it's the end of the world, but I definitely don't feel that way. It's just the context of the thread. I think it would be beneficial to get involved and to get some sort of response. And I know of no other community that could do it better, and I know of no other prominent rational thinker that would take our responses as seriously within this context. It seems like it could have a positive synergistic effect.

You're preaching to the choir with me (to use a filthy, dirty phrase). The main problem I see it the one Robin brought up. It sounds like we'd have to read the book. Ha! His Buddhism speak, as far as I've listened to and understood him, is on a purely scientifically-curious and personal-well-being-motivated level, So, meditation has these effects on our consciousness and we're not sure what that's all about, but it seems to be much more beneficial than anything as well as something worth researching, perhaps. Sam states that just because the previous may be true is no reason to suggest that any of the superstitious aspects of Buddhism are to be accepted. To him, if I were to speak for him, Buddhism can be analogized as a martial art or merely a workout routine, except there are very curious psychological benefits and experiences that have yet to be fully understood that relate to the mystery of consciousness. I don't know enough about his stance on determinism to say anything at all. He does state he's not a Buddhist. His position on paranormal claims aren't rock solid, but he doesn't accept any of them and thinks some are interesting and may be worth studying if you're into that kind of thing (paraphrased from link below): http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 I actually don't want to defend Harris just so people would take up the contest. My ultimate goal is to have the reason of UPB hit the world stage, coming from more than just FreedomainRadio, one being from a prominent speaker such as Sam Harris. Even if he only begins to accept the premises of UPB, slightly altering his opinion on his own stance on morality, I think that would be a boon to the rationality at large. Let me know if you think I'm pushing this too hard or if it seems dumb or futile. I thought it might be a good personal challenge and I can't help but say I'd be eager to see Stef and Sam speak at a debate on morality. That would just about be the coolest thing in the world and I'd buy plane tickets.

He is kind of a really famous guy--you actually put it just about how I would put it. He's one of the "4 Horsemen of Atheism" (do a Google search for that phrase), along with Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. When he is using reason to combat religiosity, he's an extremely articulate, thoughtful, and convincing public speaker. If this was just some random guy offering up money, I wouldn't bother posting. The money is part of the incentive, but the other is that you'd be conversing with someone on the level with the most prominent atheists in the world at the moment (barring Christopher Hitchens). It'd be great to just plop UPB into the submission box, but I think it would be a good challenge to distill UPB into 1000 words as a rebuttal to Sam Harris specifically, as there are very good reasons you'd want UPB to be either accepted or criticized, especially by someone you'd want spreading its reason. If you haven't ever heard of Sam Harris, I'd suggest listening to any of his talks (barring those on morality at first!!!) on YouTube to see what he's all about.

Hi All, I happen to be a member of the Sam Harris forums and I recently received an email about a contest that Sam Harris is having in February regarding moral philosophy. He's asking fellow thinkers to send in a rebuttal to his Moral Landscape book/theory (however you want to perceive it). I've always been a fan of Sam Harris but I've never been satisfied with his well-being vs. suffering postulation as all my conscious brain can do is poke hole after hole in his arguments that ultimately come down to utilitarianism (in my opinion). So he's got this contest, here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1 The prize is $2,000 dollars to be published and $10,000 if you're actually able to change his mind. Frankly, I want Stef to take it to the hole here, but that doesn't mean that any one of us couldn't put forth the best arguments (1000 words or less) based on what's (starting to become) natural to us. This is fun, it's incentivized, and it's an opportunity to get Sam Harris thinking more about UPB. If you're interested, I'm glad I was able to show it to you. I hope everyone is doing great. Thanks and keep supporting FDR and each other. Justin