Non-theistic Moral Realism

[seer]

Utilitarian teleology does not have and anthropomorphic plan by definition.

Of course it does, Utilitarian teleology by definition states that the goal of man is general happiness for the greatest number. I linked that very definition. That is clearly anthropomorphic, since nothing in nature plans that. That is a man made theory and nothing else. Again you need to understand what you are talking about, because presently you don't: https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html

[shunyadragon]

Of course it does, Utilitarian teleology by definition states that the goal of man is general happiness for the greatest number. I linked that very definition. That is clearly anthropomorphic, since nothing in nature plans that. That is a man made theory and nothing else. Again you need to understand what you are talking about, because presently you don't: https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html

You are selectively citing your source to justify your selective worldview. Not all those that propose utilitarian teleology propose general happiness as a goal. Bentham and Mill describes 'general happiness' as a motivation of human morals and ethics. Henry Sidgwick rejected Bentham and Mill's motivation for utilitarian teleology. The concept has a longer history and more perspectives than you simplistically describe.

I am very familiar with this reference.

. . . and Moore;



A selective view of one philosophical view of utilitarian teleology does not define it. your bad.

READ fully your own reference!

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, NMN says that objective duties and values exist. But they don't exist, and you have not been able to demonstrate that they do. Why for instance do I have a DUTY to help you? Where does this objective duty come from? What obligates me to this duty?

You have the DUTY to help me for the cooperation necessary for the survival of the community, of course, in reality you have a will and may refuse to help me, but most people help each other most of the time, thereore the community and society survive.

[seer]

You are selectively citing your source to justify your selective worldview. Not all those that propose utilitarian teleology propose general happiness as a goal. Bentham and Mill describes 'general happiness' as a motivation of human morals and ethics. Henry Sidgwick rejected Bentham and Mill's motivation for utilitarian teleology. The concept has a longer history and more perspectives than you simplistically describe.

Shuny are you dense, you have just proven my point. Even those who agree with Utilitarian theory can not agree on what it is, what constitutes it. That it because it is a man made theory and completely subjective!

[seer]

You have the DUTY to help me for the cooperation necessary for the survival of the community, of course, in reality you have a will and may refuse to help me, but most people help each other most of the time, thereore the community and society survive.

But what if taking your stuff makes me more secure, richer and better able to survive and pass on my genes? What if enslaving the minority of a population helps the majority survive better?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny are you dense, you have just proven my point. Even those who agree with Utilitarian theory can not agree on what it is, what constitutes it. That it because it is a man made theory and completely subjective!

No points are proven nor not proven, except your dishonest selective use of references to justify your worldview.

[shunyadragon]

But what if taking your stuff makes me more secure, richer and better able to survive and pass on my genes? What is enslaving the minority of a population helps the majority survive better?

It was in the case of the Old Testament Hebrews. Foreign slaves were bought and sold by Hebrews as property. This by the way this is chattel slavery. Is that good?

[seer]

No points are proven nor not proven, except your dishonest selective use of references to justify your worldview.

Shuny, Utilitarian theory is man made, it is not objective, and is subjective. There is no teleology or plan for mankind in nature. You just once again refuse to admit that you are wrong.

[seer]

It was in the case of the Old Testament Hebrews. Foreign slaves were bought and sold by Hebrews as property. This by the way this is chattel slavery. Is that good?

Yopu did not answer the questions: What if taking your stuff makes me more secure, richer and better able to survive and pass on my genes? What is enslaving the minority of a population helps the majority survive better? Why is that wrong? Certainly not according to nature - then according to what?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, Utilitarian theory is man made, it is not objective, and is subjective. There is no teleology or plan for mankind in nature. You just once again refuse to admit that you are wrong.

It is based on objective verifiable evidence. I am using your definition given in your post for subjective versus objective and your responses dishonestly represent these definitions.

[shunyadragon]

Yopu did not answer the questions: What if taking your stuff makes me more secure, richer and better able to survive and pass on my genes? What is enslaving the minority of a population helps the majority survive better? Why is that wrong? Certainly not according to nature - then according to what?

Utilitarian Teleology and the witness of the Hebrews in the OT. It was their utilitarian advantage to do what they did in their conquest of Judah.

Why are these things wrong in your worldview.

[Tassman]

That makes no sense Shuny, why is it good for the human species to survive? Was it an objective verifiable fact that it was good for the dinosaurs to survive? Says who?

Did nature have a plan or purpose for us? Did nature have a teleology for humankind? Did it have a teleology for dinosaurs.

No!

[Tassman]

Shuny are you dense, you have just proven my point. Even those who agree with Utilitarian theory can not agree on what it is, what constitutes it. That it because it is a man made theory and completely subjective!

All morality is "man-made" and "subjective", including that based upon the bible. This is why the accepted social values of Christian societies 2,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago or 100 years ago are significantly different...despite being based upon the supposedly objective moral standards of the bible. And they're different because Christians of the different eras subjectively interpret scripture according to the developing social mores of their own day.

[shunyadragon]

All morality is "man-made" and "subjective", including that based upon the bible. This is why the accepted social values of Christian societies 2,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago or 100 years ago are significantly different...despite being based upon the supposedly objective moral standards of the bible. And they're different because Christians of the different eras subjectively interpret scripture according to the developing social mores of their own day.

Here I will disagree big time from the scientific and secular perspective of NMN. Morality as defined is neither subjective nor nebulously objective as described by many Theists. It is not "man made."

From the scientific perspective basis of "morals and ethics" are evolved naturally and are social and cultural attributes that evolved and NOT "man made." They do indeed have objective and subjective attributes that may be used to describe the nature of tis evolved morality, and continually evolving morality of humanity.

Describing morality as "man made" is an odd anthropomorphic description of a natural evolving nature of not only humans but also all of the higher mammals that have more primative moral systems that describe their evolved social relationships.

[Tassman]

Here I will disagree big time from the scientific and secular perspective of NMN. Morality as defined is neither subjective nor nebulously objective as described by many Theists. It is not "man made."

From the scientific perspective basis of "morals and ethics" are evolved naturally and are social and cultural attributes that evolved and NOT "man made." They do indeed have objective and subjective attributes that may be used to describe the nature of tis evolved morality, and continually evolving morality of humanity.

Describing morality as "man made" is an odd anthropomorphic description of a natural evolving nature of not only humans but also all of the higher mammals that have more primative moral systems that describe their evolved social relationships.