Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    In the natural evolution of humanity the purpose of of society is social cooperation, family and community stability, and morals and ethics that must dominate or humanity would not survive. There is no problem that some do not, but that would not dominate humanity as a whole.
    Shuny, evolutionary processes have no purpose for humankind, not even our survival.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Shuny, evolutionary processes have no purpose for humankind, not even our survival.
      Assertion without support to justify your agenda.

      Without the evolutionary advantages of social cooperation, family nurturing of the off-spring, and morals and ethics humans could not survive, neither could primates, and neither could life without the evolutionary advantages to adapt to environments and reproduce.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Assertion without support to justify your agenda.

        Without the evolutionary advantages of social cooperation, family nurturing of the off-spring, and morals and ethics humans could not survive, neither could primates, and neither could life without the evolutionary advantages to adapt to environments and reproduce.
        Shuny, what I said is perfectly correct - evolutionary processes have no purpose for humankind. Any more than they had a purpose for dinosaurs. The evolutionary process does not care or purpose that we survive, or not. It is indifferent to our existence. Or whether we survive in community or via a solitary life, like certain other species.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Shuny, what I said is perfectly correct - evolutionary processes have no purpose for humankind. Any more than they had a purpose for dinosaurs. The evolutionary process does not care or purpose that we survive, or not. It is indifferent to our existence. Or whether we survive in community or via a solitary life, like certain other species.
          What you said is perfectly based on your agenda, and not the science of evolution. The fact that some species do not survive does not mean that evolution of life does not have a purpose. Different species evolve different behaviors to adapt and survive in different environments. Caring is anthropomorphic consideration. The purpose of evolution is for life and species to survive in different environments, and adapt to changes in environments. Sometimes species succeed and sometimes they fail. This is supported by objective verifiable evidence and not assertion simply based on ones desire to reject evolution and justify your agenda.

          Where is the evidence to support your assertion?
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            What you said is perfectly based on your agenda, and not the science of evolution. The fact that some species do not survive does not mean that evolution of life does not have a purpose. Different species evolve different behaviors to adapt and survive in different environments. Caring is anthropomorphic consideration. The purpose of evolution is for life and species to survive in different environments, and adapt to changes in environments. Sometimes species succeed and sometimes they fail. This is supported by objective verifiable evidence and not assertion simply based on ones desire to reject evolution and justify your agenda.

            Where is the evidence to support your assertion?
            Nonsense Shuny, natural forces are not sentient. They do not intent or purpose anything, not our survival, not the survival of any species. Some species get lucky, others don't. That is all there is to it.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Nonsense Shuny, natural forces are not sentient. They do not intent or purpose anything, . . .
              True but that is not how evolution works in the real world.

              . . . not our survival, not the survival of any species. Some species get lucky, others don't. That is all there is to it.
              That is all there is to your anti-science agenda. Evolution is not a product of anthropomorphic intent and purposes. It is a product of natural processes that life evolves to survive and adapt to different environments. by far the evidence is conclusive most species either evolve in response to a change in environment, or go extinct if the change cannot be adapted to or a catastrophic natural event. Even in events such as the extinction of the dinosaurs many species evolved and changed in response to the changes in the environment. There is no necessary anthropomorphic intent nor purpose necessary.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                But Charles, there are no boundaries with atheism either, just look at Stalinism or Maoism. But of course there would be boundaries with God since His commands would conform to His immutable moral character.
                The problem with this view is that God is a fictional entity and all his moral attributes were given to him by Man who made him in his own image. Hence we had a violent tribal god in Moses' time and a more loving entity in Jesus' time.

                Well the fact that they don't exist is interesting too. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And the law of God would still exist whether we decided to follow them or not.
                The law of God would only exist for as long as people believe it does. God is like Tinkerbell. If you stop believing in him he dies.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  True but that is not how evolution works in the real world.
                  But you just said it was true...



                  That is all there is to your anti-science agenda. Evolution is not a product of anthropomorphic intent and purposes. It is a product of natural processes that life evolves to survive and adapt to different environments. by far the evidence is conclusive most species either evolve in response to a change in environment, or go extinct if the change cannot be adapted to or a catastrophic natural event. Even in events such as the extinction of the dinosaurs many species evolved and changed in response to the changes in the environment. There is no necessary anthropomorphic intent nor purpose necessary.

                  And? You are making my point - natural laws do not intent or purpose anything. Some species get lucky, others don't.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    But Charles, there are no boundaries with atheism either, just look at Stalinism or Maoism. But of course there would be boundaries with God since His commands would conform to His immutable moral character.



                    Well the fact that they don't exist is interesting too. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And the law of God would still exist whether we decided to follow them or not.



                    I have read Sam Harris over the years, if you want to bring up a particular point post it here.
                    1) There are boundries. But by using the word "either" you seem to admit your system contains no boundries. Interesting! And scarry!

                    2) Your point was that even if they existed you would not see a reason to follow them. In short that is like saying: even if something is objectively morally wrong I don't care.

                    3) I encourage you to see the video. His main point is that Christianity is not a foundation of ethics. It is a contradiction of ethics. Some of the reasons for that can be seen above. But his account is more detailed. Enjoy.
                    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                      1) There are boundries. But by using the word "either" you seem to admit your system contains no boundries. Interesting! And scarry!
                      "Either" may not be the correct word, but you already knew that I believe God has moral boundaries. What boundaries does the Maoist or Stalinist have?

                      2) Your point was that even if they existed you would not see a reason to follow them. In short that is like saying: even if something is objectively morally wrong I don't care.
                      The point Charles is there is no reason to follow them, logically. If a man is selfish and can get away with whatever why follow this objective rule, even if he believed in it? What is the upside?

                      3) I encourage you to see the video. His main point is that Christianity is not a foundation of ethics. It is a contradiction of ethics. Some of the reasons for that can be seen above. But his account is more detailed. Enjoy.
                      Charles I have been around enough to know that absurdity is often in the eye of the beholder. And talk about absurdity - Sam Harris does not believe we have free will, but that all our thoughts and acts are determined biologically and by antecedent conditions - which means there is no freedom of thought, which means Harris has no idea if he was determined to believe a truism on this issue or not. But if you have a particular point please post it here.

                      And you should watch the this debate,where Craig takes Harris' argument apart:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
                      Last edited by seer; 09-25-2017, 01:24 PM.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        "Either" may not be the correct word, but you already knew that I believe God has moral boundaries. What boundaries does the Maoist or Stalinist have?



                        The point Charles is there is no reason to follow them, logically. If a man is selfish and can get away with whatever why follow this objective rule, even if he believed in it? What is the upside?



                        Charles I have been around enough to know that absurdity is often in the eye of the beholder. And talk about absurdity - Sam Harris does not believe we have free will, but that all our thoughts and acts are determined biologically and by antecedent conditions - which means there is no freedom of thought, which means Harris has no idea if he was determined to believe a truism on this issue or not. But if you have a particular point please post it here.

                        And you should watch the this debate,where Craig takes Harris' argument apart:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
                        1) There is no way for you to determine or make any evaluation of whether those boundries are fair or not. You admitted you were prepared to kill, just to mention one. The maoist or stalinist do not know any boundries. What does that have to do with the case? Do you think they represent me or that their opinion obliges the rest of us to accept their opinion as equally qualified. As long as fools exist we cannot claim to be wise? Or what is your point? It seems very weak.

                        2) If the fact that something is morally wrong is not a reason enough for you to not do it, the error lies with you not with the moral truths. You are basically saying that selfishnes is the truth and what we should go for, unless it is punished and then it is better for our personal interest to treat others with a little more respect in order to avoid the consequences. A very sad view on human relations. In the opinion of many Christians a person can kill and torture innocent people everyday his whole life and then repent 5 minutes before he dies and then go to the etarnal glory in heaven while those he killed can go to hell. It may be that you do not hold this view. Quite many Christians do.

                        3) If you have a particular point about Craig whose points were taken apart by Harris then please post it here
                        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Originally posted by JimL
                          You may believe it in your own best interest to murder and rob others as well, but if ones own personal best interests were all that mattered then the same would apply to everyone which would counter your notion of what it is that you believe to be your best interests.
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill
                          All I'm saying is that my best interest can conflict with society's best interest. But why should society be preserved? If it comes to that, why should I be preserved?
                          What do you mean why? See if you can answer that question for yourself, since I already have.
                          Well, society is not going to punish me if I don't preserve myself. Why ought I to obey any moral impulse?

                          Originally posted by Tassman
                          Evolution is not forcing you to obey just as it's not forcing a mother to nurture her child. But most mothers do nurture their offspring because they are predisposed via natural selection to do so.
                          But why ought I to obey?

                          Best wishes, Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                            1) There is no way for you to determine or make any evaluation of whether those boundries are fair or not. You admitted you were prepared to kill, just to mention one. The maoist or stalinist do not know any boundries. What does that have to do with the case? Do you think they represent me or that their opinion obliges the rest of us to accept their opinion as equally qualified. As long as fools exist we cannot claim to be wise? Or what is your point? It seems very weak.
                            No Charles, it is immaterial where you would draw the line, the question is, is there a line. With God there is that possibility, with atheism there is not.

                            2) If the fact that something is morally wrong is not a reason enough for you to not do it, the error lies with you not with the moral truths. You are basically saying that selfishnes is the truth and what we should go for, unless it is punished and then it is better for our personal interest to treat others with a little more respect in order to avoid the consequences. A very sad view on human relations. In the opinion of many Christians a person can kill and torture innocent people everyday his whole life and then repent 5 minutes before he dies and then go to the etarnal glory in heaven while those he killed can go to hell. It may be that you do not hold this view. Quite many Christians do.
                            First Charles, yes I do believe that all men can find forgiveness with God, even you! Second, you really did not answer my question - there is no upside for the selfish man. In other words objective morality has no real application in the world. A moral relativist could treat others with a little more respect just because he feels it is right, objective morality is not necessary. And you should read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce - where the murdered man in hell meets the man who murdered him living in heaven. Interesting dialog.


                            3) If you have a particular point about Craig whose points were taken apart by Harris then please post it here
                            Well one interesting point was about what I brought up. If we really are just biological machines as Harris suggests, then how can machines be held morally responsible? In what sense are they responsible?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Well, society is not going to punish me if I don't preserve myself. Why ought I to obey any moral impulse?
                              Not sure what the question has to do with the assertion here, but you ought to obey because morals are in the best interests of both society and ultimately yourself.

                              But why ought I to obey?
                              The best interests of society, to which you are a member, is not about you and your interests alone, thats why you ought to obey. Self interests alone, over and above the interests of society is destructive to the best interests of the whole body which in turn is detrimental to the best interests of the individual members thereof, including your own.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Well, society is not going to punish me if I don't preserve myself. Why ought I to obey any moral impulse?
                                But society will punish you if your behaviour imperils the stability of the society.

                                But why ought I to obey?
                                You can't make an "ought" from an "is" as the great David Hume opined. We obey because we are instinctively predisposed to obey and have been conditioned from infancy onward, to obey to rules of society.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X