Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[Tassman]

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.

It's seer's tiresome little game which he plays endlessly. The conclusion you are meant to draw from it is that without God there can be no morality. This is an unsupported assertion and he forgets that we have evolved as a social species and therefore predisposed to obey the rules of the group.

[shunyadragon]

But you just said it was true...

No I did not, the fact that some species go extinct and others do not is the circumstances of the changing environment, and not luck. What you refuse to accept is the overwhelming evidence that species evolve and adapt to changing environments, and the opportunity to occupy new environments. Purpose and intent )Intelligent Design is not only not necessary for evolution to take place naturally over millions of years, but there is no objective evidence that supports this view..

And? You are making my point - natural laws do not intent or purpose anything.

No, I am not making your point. Yes, purpose and intent is not necessary concerning the nature of our physical existence as a scientific explanation. Intent and purpose is a Theist belief and not necessary for science to demonstrate that the natural processes and Natural Laws to explain the nature of our physical existence, origins and evolution of life.

[lee_merrill]

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.

I ought to obey so we can all have a better life? But why should we all have a better life?

You can't make an "ought" from an "is" as the great David Hume opined.

Yes, indeed--so I really need not obey any given moral impulse, especially if it looks like I can get away with it.

Best wishes,
Lee

[Tassman]

I ought to obey so we can all have a better life? But why should we all have a better life?

It's more pleasant than the alternative.

Yes, indeed--so I really need not obey any given moral impulse, especially if it looks like I can get away with it.

Many don't. But they risk the censure and ultimately punishment by the group.

[seer]

No I did not, the fact that some species go extinct and others do not is the circumstances of the changing environment, and not luck. What you refuse to accept is the overwhelming evidence that species evolve and adapt to changing environments, and the opportunity to occupy new environments. Purpose and intent )Intelligent Design is not only not necessary for evolution to take place naturally over millions of years, but there is no objective evidence that supports this view..

Shuny, I said that natural forces are not sentient that they do not intent or purpose anything. You said that was true. And I'm not sure what you mean by objective evidence, humankind could have never evolved to our present state of knowledge, science, ethics, etc... without the rational soul - or so your religion teaches. It is the rational soul that separates us from the animals. Human beings are not merely the product of natural evolution. And Shuny that rational soul is the product of God's intelligent creative act.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I said that natural forces are not sentient that they do not intent or purpose anything. You said that was true. And I'm not sure what you mean by objective evidence, humankind could have never evolved to our present state of knowledge, science, ethics, etc... without the rational soul - or so your religion teaches. It is the rational soul that separates us from the animals. Human beings are not merely the product of natural evolution.

Not an accurate citation of what I said.

And Shuny that rational soul is the product of God's intelligent creative act.

True, but that is not related to my argument.

[seer]

True, but that is not related to my argument.

It is related to the whole subject, humankind only developed as it did because of the rational soul. Nature alone did not get us here, not scientifically, not with general knowledge, not ethically.

[shunyadragon]

It is related to the whole subject, humankind only developed as it did because of the rational soul. Nature alone did not get us here, not scientifically, not with general knowledge, not ethically.

Actually, humankind including the rational soul were created and developed because of God, and not the rational soul.

I believe God Created by natural methods and natural laws and in harmony with how science describes our physical existence. Your argument fails when you try to argue against science to justify your agenda. Science is neutral to Theological beliefs and justification, and describes our physical existence simply as it is.

The scientific explanation for our physical existence, abiogenesis, and evolution are the best explanation beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, there are many unknowns, but careful 'arguing from ignorance' is a fallacy, and not a coherent argument for your agenda.

[seer]

Actually, humankind including the rational soul were created and developed because of God, and not the rational soul.

I believe God Created by natural methods and natural laws and in harmony with how science describes our physical existence. Your argument fails when you try to argue against science to justify your agenda. Science is neutral to Theological beliefs and justification, and describes our physical existence simply as it is.

The scientific explanation for our physical existence, abiogenesis, and evolution are the best explanation beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, there are many unknowns, but careful 'arguing from ignorance' is a fallacy, and not a coherent argument for your agenda.

Science can not account for the rational soul, it is immaterial, and it makes us what we are - and separates us from the animals, as your religion teaches.

[JimL]

Science can not account for the rational soul, it is immaterial, and it makes us what we are - and separates us from the animals, as your religion teaches.

Where is this soul located in the body seer? Descartes thought it sat in the pineal gland. What do you think?

[seer]

Where is this soul located in the body seer? Descartes thought it sat in the pineal gland. What do you think?

It is immaterial so it is non-spatial.

[lee_merrill]

It's more pleasant than the alternative.

For us, maybe, but why should our interests trump the interests of other species?

Many don't. But they risk the censure and ultimately punishment by the group.

Certainly, so we are maximizing self-interest, with a view to the risk involved. But this would not be what most people would think of as moral behavior.

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Science can not account for the rational soul, it is immaterial, and it makes us what we are - and separates us from the animals, as your religion teaches.

I have always agreed with this, but it is not subject at hand concerning your problems with evolution, which does not deal with the rational soul, because it is beyond the scope of Methodological Naturalism.

As far as the science of evolution explaining the physical natural processes of the history of humanity, our ancestors and the evolution of life, this is supported by the objective verifiable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is more certain than any other explanation.

[JimL]

It is immaterial so it is non-spatial.

So it doesn't exist in space then? When you say it is non-spatial, do you mean to say that it isn't confined somewhere within your body?

[shunyadragon]

For us, maybe, but why should our interests trump the interests of other species?

This is natural expected behavior in the evolution for a given species, or even population within a species that their interests trump the interests of other species, and at times groups within species.

Certainly, so we are maximizing self-interest, with a view to the risk involved. But this would not be what most people would think of as moral behavior.

Nonetheless it is the motivation for moral behavior, and not moral behavior itself. The same goes for cooperative behavior within a group is a motivation for moral behavior for mutual interest. This behavior is wide spread in the animal kingdom, as in primates, and pack hunting animals like wolves.