Non-theistic Moral Realism

[Adrift]

By “man-made” I mean not resulting from divine revelation or existing in isolation from our evolved nature as a social species. I agree with you that “not only humans but also all of the higher mammals that have more primitive moral systems that describe their evolved social relationships”.

If shunyadragon were really a member of the Baha'i Faith he would disagree with you that morality is divinely revealed. He probably won't disagree with you, but if he were a Baha'i he would.

[shunyadragon]

By “man-made” I mean not resulting from divine revelation or existing in isolation from our evolved nature as a social species. I agree with you that “not only humans but also all of the higher mammals that have more primitive moral systems that describe their evolved social relationships”.

Well . . . ah, you need to describe your view of morality and ethics in better terms, and more in line with the reality of the scientific perspective and philosophical perspective of NMN. The argument against a "man made" morals and ethics does not address the challenge of Christian Divinely ordained 'objective morality' and the somewhat different nuanced view of seer that describes it differently, but remains not "man made," but Divinely directed and orchestrated.

I want to make it clear; My argument is not against nor for Theistic, nor the secular humanistic NMN, nor the natural morals and ethics that satisfactorily describe the evolved nature of morality and ethics. My argument is against bone headed egocentric arguments that have the only purpose is justify ones on point of view. The actual conclusion of which is correct cannot be resolve with bone headed arguments,

[Tassman]

Well . . . ah, you need to describe your view of morality and ethics in better terms, and more in line with the reality of the scientific perspective and philosophical perspective of NMN. The argument against a "man made" morals and ethics does not address the challenge of Christian Divinely ordained 'objective morality' and the somewhat different nuanced view of seer that describes it differently, but remains not "man made," but Divinely directed and orchestrated.

I want to make it clear; My argument is not against nor for Theistic, nor the secular humanistic NMN, nor the natural morals and ethics that satisfactorily describe the evolved nature of morality and ethics. My argument is against bone headed egocentric arguments that have the only purpose is justify ones on point of view. The actual conclusion of which is correct cannot be resolve with bone headed arguments,

You view morality in more complex terms than I. I'm perfectly content to limit them to "the natural morals and ethics that satisfactorily describe the evolved nature of morality and ethics"...to quote you in part. I think this just about covers it.

[seer]

It is based on objective verifiable evidence.

What is the 'objective verifiable evidence' for Utilitarian teleology? That it is more than a man made, invented, theory?

[shunyadragon]

What is the 'objective verifiable evidence' for Utilitarian teleology? That it is more than a man made, invented, theory?

Do you consider science only "man made invented theory?" This apparently how you have selectively viewed science that does not agree with your agenda.

[seer]

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.

First Tass, that is false. As we discussed, I know the New Testament and the writings of the early Church Fathers well enough to know that my beliefs are very consistent with theirs. Second, even if we interpreted scripture wrongly that would not mean that God's law did not exist.

[seer]

Do you consider science only "man made invented theory?" This apparently how you have selectively viewed science that does not agree with your agenda.

Shuny, Utilitarian theory, as you have said, has a teleology. A goal, or a plan or a purpose for humankind. But that plan is not found in nature, nature, natural law, has no plan or goal for humankind - not even for our survival. It is not an objective truth or fact that man should survive or even act morally in a specific way. Utilitarian theory sets out goals and how we should act to meet those goals. But the goals are subjective. In my link Utilitarianism was set in contrast with another ethical theory - Ethical Egoism. They are light years apart, with different subjective goals.

https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, Utilitarian theory, as you have said, has a teleology. A goal, or a plan or a purpose for humankind.

Does not make sense. Utilitarian Teleology does not have a 'plan' for humanity.

But that plan is not found in nature, nature, natural law, has no plan or goal for humankind - not even for our survival. It is not an objective truth or fact that man should survive or even act morally in a specific way. Utilitarian theory sets out goals and how we should act to meet those goals. But the goals are subjective. In my link Utilitarianism was set in contrast with another ethical theory - Ethical Egoism. They are light years apart, with different subjective goals.

First, 'objective truth(?)' is not claimed here and does not in reality except in the delusion of the misinformed. Any claims of 'objective truth' in philosophy or theology is an assertion of belief, nothing more.

Second, we have been addressing the various philosophies for the argument for natural morals and ethics based on natural laws, and not the science itself. The view that morals and ethics are based on natural laws and evolution is the science, based on objective verifiable evidence, and not the philosophies discussed so far.

https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html

You already selectively dishonestly misrepresented this reference. What is your specific point this time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

This reference is not particularly meaningful, and relies mostly what the goal and purpose of individual motivation to what is in their 'self-interest.' It totally neglects the reality of morals and ethics throughout the known history of humanity, which is not based on egocentric 'individual self-interest,' but on the morals and ethics of families, communities, and societies, which, in turn, over ride motivations of individual self-interest. The foundation science of natural morals and ethics is based on the objective verifiable evidence of human evolution for the survival of the species.

You have failed to respond to some important questions.

Important question; What is the objective verifiable evidence for the necessity of an 'objective morals and ethics' based on a Theistic Teleology.

[seer]

Does not make sense. Utilitarian Teleology does not have a 'plan' for humanity.

Shuny, do you know what Teleology means?

Teleology, (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose, end, goal, or function. Traditionally, it was also described as final causality...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology

So before we move, since you are confusing me, we need to define terms. What exactly is your Utilitarian Teleology, what does Teleology refer to here. If it is not a Teleology (plan or goal) for humanity or human ethics, what does it refer to?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, do you know what Teleology means?

Yes, do you know what Utilitarian Teleology means?

Teleology is Theistic view, Utilitarian Teleology is non-theistic view with no plan.

So before we move, since you are confusing me, we need to define terms. What exactly is your Utilitarian Teleology, what does Teleology refer to here. If it is not a Teleology (plan or goal) for humanity or human ethics, what does it refer to?

You provided the reference, which I was familiar with, and you misrepresented it, and apparently did not read it. Read your own reference and you will know.

[seer]

Yes, do you know what Utilitarian Teleology means?

Teleology is Theistic view, Utilitarian Teleology is non-theistic view with no plan.



You provided the reference, which I was familiar with, and you misrepresented it, and apparently did not read it. Read your own reference and you will know.

Shuny, here is a quote from your link in post #92

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

So you own link states that teleological means goal or aim. My definition includes plan as well. So what goal does Utilitarian Teleology have? Who or what does this goal apply to? If not human ethics or humanity in general what is this a goal for?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, here is a quote from your link in post #92



So you own link states that teleological means goal or aim. My definition includes plan as well. So what goal does Utilitarian Teleology have? Who or what does this goal apply to? If not human ethics or humanity in general what is this a goal for?

The goal of Utilitarian Teleology in this case is the survival of life and species. The goal applies to all life on earth. No, it does not include a plan. Theistic Teleology may include a plan.

[seer]

The goal of Utilitarian Teleology in this case is the survival of life and species. The goal applies to all life on earth. No, it does not include a plan. Theistic Teleology may include a plan.

I don't understand Shuny. Where does this goal for our survival come from? Certainly not from nature since numerous species have gone extinct, survival was not a goal for them.

[shunyadragon]

I don't understand Shuny. Where does this goal for our survival come from? Certainly not from nature since numerous species have gone extinct, survival was not a goal for them.

It was and is the goal of the nature of life and species, but of course the reality of nature not all survive. Some last millions of years, others a few years or less. Species, sub-species and varieties come and go, but life goes on, and is successful for billions of years. There is an interesting theory that the goal of life is the survival of the genes by any means naturally possible.

[seer]

It was and is the goal of the nature of life and species, but of course the reality of nature not all survive. Some last millions of years, others a few years or less. Species, sub-species and varieties come and go, but life goes on, and is successful for billions of years. There is an interesting theory that the goal of life is the survival of the genes by any means naturally possible.

But again Shuny, some species do not survive so survival was not a goal for them. And there is nothing to say that all life won't go extinct some day. There is no goal found in nature for humankind (and Utilitarian Teleology only applies to humankind) so I will have to ask again, if nature does not have this goal for humanity then where does this goal come from?