Non-theistic Moral Realism

[seer]

False, survival of the species through adaptive change, or the replacement of more adaptive species when others go extinct is indeed the purpose in a scientific secular view of nature. Survival is good. This is what the objective evidence indicates in science.

That is not the point Shuny, teleology means a plan or purpose - purpose requires INTENT. There is no intent with the laws of nature. They do not intend that we survive they do not intend that we go extinct. The laws of nature intend nothing. Either result is without plan or purpose.

Teleology
1.the doctrine that final causes exist.
2.the study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature.
3.such design or purpose.
4.the belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature.

[shunyadragon]

That is not the point Shuny, teleology means a plan or purpose - purpose requires INTENT. There is no intent with the laws of nature. They do not intend that we survive they do not intend that we go extinct. The laws of nature intend nothing. Either result is without plan or purpose.

You are interpreting teleology from a strict narrow theistic definition, but the reality is not so.

Source: ethics.iit.edu/teaching/utilitarianism

Is Utilitarianism teleological?
In Greek, telos means 'goal' or 'aim.' In deontological theories, (moral) right is derived without a theory of (non-moral) good, or what choice is (morally) right regardless of the end consequences. In Greek, deon means 'duty.' Utilitarian theories are teleological.
Utilitarianism | Center For The Study Of Ethics In The Professions

© Copyright Original Source

ethics.iit.edu/teaching/utilitarianism

[seer]

You are interpreting teleology from a strict narrow theistic definition, but the reality is not so.

Source: ethics.iit.edu/teaching/utilitarianism

Is Utilitarianism teleological?
In Greek, telos means 'goal' or 'aim.' In deontological theories, (moral) right is derived without a theory of (non-moral) good, or what choice is (morally) right regardless of the end consequences. In Greek, deon means 'duty.' Utilitarian theories are teleological.
Utilitarianism | Center For The Study Of Ethics In The Professions

© Copyright Original Source

ethics.iit.edu/teaching/utilitarianism

Nonsense, again what goals does nature have for humankind? I'm not asking about invented moral theories like Utilitarianism.

Remember you said: There has never been a problem of a teleology for a purpose of the human human being is the survival of the species from a secular scientific perspective

[JimL]

Nonsense, again what goals does nature have for humankind? I'm not asking about invented moral theories like Utilitarianism.

Remember you said: There has never been a problem of a teleology for a purpose of the human human being is the survival of the species from a secular scientific perspective

Human beings are a part of nature, so if we have goals, such as what is in our best interests as human beings, or as a society of human beings, then nature has goals. The goals don't need be directed from above, they are inherent in nature itself.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, again what goals does nature have for humankind? I'm not asking about invented moral theories like Utilitarianism.

Remember you said: There has never been a problem of a teleology for a purpose of the human being is the survival of the species from a secular scientific perspective

Yes, I remember . . . and, yes. there is no problem with scientific utilitarian teleology for a purpose of the human being is the survival of the species from a secular scientific perspective.

Incomplete citation

My answer remains in spite of your assertions.

"There has never been a problem of a teleology for a purpose of the human being is the survival of the species from a secular scientific perspective, an omnivorous, intelligent and social species which requires morals, ethics, social order and altruism to survive as do other primates and higher intelligent mammals, also have primitive morals, ethics, social orders, and altruism in a simpler form to support their need to survive. Survival of the species is good.

The natural process of evolution of all life are the processes of Creation by God that result in the supreme Talisman of Creation Humanity. Creation is a very natural process that reflects the same results as discovered by Methodological Naturalist scientific processes and results of the secular view of the nature of our physical existence."

[seer]

Yes, I remember . . . and, yes. there is no problem with scientific utilitarian teleology for a purpose of the human being is the survival of the species from a secular scientific perspective.

Pure nonsense Shuny, there is nothing in science that tells us that nature created us to be happy or even to survive. Show me the scientific studies that say so. Utilitarianism is not a scientific theory, it is an invented moral theory. Nature has no plan, purpose or goal for humankind any more than it did for the the previous species that went extinct.

"There has never been a problem of a teleology for a purpose of the human being is the survival of the species from a secular scientific perspective, an omnivorous, intelligent and social species which requires morals, ethics, social order and altruism to survive as do other primates and higher intelligent mammals, also have primitive morals, ethics, social orders, and altruism in a simpler form to support their need to survive. Survival of the species is good.

Who says that our survival is a moral good? That is subjective. When a creature goes extinct is that a moral wrong? You are not making sense.

The natural process of evolution of all life are the processes of Creation by God that result in the supreme Talisman of Creation Humanity. Creation is a very natural process that reflects the same results as discovered by Methodological Naturalist scientific processes and results of the secular view of the nature of our physical existence."

Sure if you bring God into the picture then you can have a teleology.

[seer]

Human beings are a part of nature, so if we have goals, such as what is in our best interests as human beings, or as a society of human beings, then nature has goals. The goals don't need be directed from above, they are inherent in nature itself.

But those goals are subjective Jim. Matt's point was that there was an objective teleology that wasn't dependent on human opinion.

[shunyadragon]

But those goals are subjective Jim. Matt's point was that there was an objective teleology that wasn't dependent on human opinion.

Possibly Natural Law and the physical nature of our existence.

[seer]

Possibly Natural Law and the physical nature of our existence.

What are you talking about?

[JimL]

But those goals are subjective Jim. Matt's point was that there was an objective teleology that wasn't dependent on human opinion.

I didn't get the sense that Matt was making a point, he seemed more to be asking for opinions regarding theistic and or non theistic moral realism. I'm in the non-theistic camp.

[seer]

I didn't get the sense that Matt was making a point, he seemed more to be asking for opinions regarding theistic and or non theistic moral realism. I'm in the non-theistic camp.

Could be, but I think it was arguing for non-theistic moral realism or at least he thought it was a valid position. Which as I have been arguing, I don't see how, or even if it was, what good it would do.

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about?

But those goals are subjective Jim. Matt's point was that there was an objective teleology that wasn't dependent on human opinion.

Possibly Natural Law and the physical nature of our existence, which are not dependent on human opinion.

[seer]

Possibly Natural Law and the physical nature of our existence, which are not dependent on human opinion.

Shuny you are not making sense. What purpose or goal did the laws of nature have in creating us? You are just asserting with no explanation.

[mattdamore]

Could be, but I think it was arguing for non-theistic moral realism or at least he thought it was a valid position. Which as I have been arguing, I don't see how, or even if it was, what good it would do.

I'm a Christian Theist, so the most I could say - I think! - is that non-theistic moral realism is possible. I'm inclined to think the arguments are fallacious, and I plan on writing my paper on the book. I'll share it on this thread probably later this month. I'd love to have it critiqued by you guys.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny you are not making sense. What purpose or goal did the laws of nature have in creating us? You are just asserting with no explanation.

For an adequate natural explanation there only needs to a scientific view of the physical mechanisms, cause and effect, nature of our physical existence dealing with how life formed, and evolved with the result of human nature and intelligence. The questions of why?, and purpose explanations remain philosophical and theological considerations, and not science. Actually the diverse conflicting philosophical and theological explanations as to the why? and purpose of the nature of our physical existence and humanity, lack objective verifiable evidence to support objectively and one 'belief' as true nor false. The problem also extends to the diverse and conflicting philosophical and theological versions on how Creation happened.