To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[shunyadragon]

You need to tell Pixie that...

This does not mean morals and ethics do not exist, but that Objective Morals and Ethics are not supported to exist, nor adequately defined to consider them universal'

You have previously objected to Objective Moralality.

[seer]

This does not mean morals and ethics do not exist, but that Objective Morals and Ethics are not supported to exist, nor adequately defined to consider them universal'

You have previously objected to Objective Moralality.

Right, objective morality does not exist - universal ethics do, i.e. the law of God...

[seer]

The gassing of the Jews is considered wrongful death by our society, and condemned.

So why is our society correct?

[Tassman]

Right, objective morality does not exist - universal ethics do, i.e. the law of God...

Really! So why did God order Moses to destroy the Midianites in what today we would condemn as ethnic cleansing.

[JimL]

Right, objective morality does not exist - universal ethics do, i.e. the law of God...

You are free to believe that of course seer, and we athiests are free to disagree, but you have zero evidence for the existence of universal ethics, or objective morals, which in turn is our evidence that they don't exist.

[JimL]

So why is our society correct?

Because only one of us can be correct, the other is wrong. What you mean to ask is how is that determined. First of all the universe doesn't care, so its up to us to find what behavior is in the best interests of the human community, in our best interests. So, there you go, only one of us can be correct in that respect and I think that most all of us would agree that murdering each other is not in our best interests as human beings.

[Tassman]

You are free to believe that of course seer, and we athiests are free to disagree, but you have zero evidence for the existence of universal ethics, or objective morals, which in turn is our evidence that they don't exist.

Quite the reverse. It is self evident that ethical values have changed considerably over the millennia...including within the Judeo/Christian religion.

[shunyadragon]

So why is our society correct?

First, our society is not always right(?). Over the history of humanity societies are objectively consistent in the long run. Morals and ethics, and a cooperative social structure to survive, remains the core of all societies and their survival. My view is this is the natural spiritual evolution of humanity. From the Philosophical Naturalist this simply how humans survive as an intelligent omnivore requiring cooperation and reciprocity with a family structure to survive. Other intelligent animals like primates and sea mammals have evolved simpler social behavior as humans for their survival.

[JimL]

First, our society is not always right(?). Over the history of humanity societies are objectively consistent in the long run. Morals and ethics, and a cooperative social structure to survive, remains the core of all societies and their survival. My view is this is the natural spiritual evolution of humanity. From the Philosophical Naturalist this simply how humans survive as an intelligent omnivore requiring cooperation and reciprocity with a family structure to survive. Other intelligent animals like primates and sea mammals have evolved simpler social behavior as humans for their survival.

Would you say shunya that the similar social behavior of primates and sea mammals was the result of a natural "spiritual" evolution?

[seer]

Really! So why did God order Moses to destroy the Midianites in what today we would condemn as ethnic cleansing.

Right, you may condemn the destruction of a particularly wicked nation, but obviously it was a just act, according to God. But you are welcome to your opinion...

[seer]

Because only one of us can be correct, the other is wrong. What you mean to ask is how is that determined. First of all the universe doesn't care, so its up to us to find what behavior is in the best interests of the human community, in our best interests. So, there you go, only one of us can be correct in that respect and I think that most all of us would agree that murdering each other is not in our best interests as human beings.

Jim that makes no sense. Why is the best interest of the human community the goal? What does that even mean? Why not the best interests of the powerful elite, or the best interests of the majority at the expense of the minority? What you are doing is completely subjective - you subjectively define the goal (best interests of humanity), then you define the good as what serves your subjective goal. So no, there is no correct or wrong in this picture.

[seer]

First, our society is not always right(?). Over the history of humanity societies are objectively consistent in the long run. Morals and ethics, and a cooperative social structure to survive, remains the core of all societies and their survival. My view is this is the natural spiritual evolution of humanity. From the Philosophical Naturalist this simply how humans survive as an intelligent omnivore requiring cooperation and reciprocity with a family structure to survive. Other intelligent animals like primates and sea mammals have evolved simpler social behavior as humans for their survival.

So Shuny, you don't believe that the law of God is universal?

[JimL]

Jim that makes no sense. Why is the best interest of the human community the goal? What does that even mean? Why not the best interests of the powerful elite, or the best interests of the majority at the expense of the minority? What you are doing is completely subjective - you subjectively define the goal (best interests of humanity), then you define the good as what serves your subjective goal. So no, there is no correct or wrong in this picture.

Human beings live in community seer, so we ask what it is that serves the best interests of those living together in community. So what is good is not subjective, what is good is whatever serves the best interests of the whole community. Being murdered for instance is not in the best interests of anyone, so it is outlawed as immoral, same with being robbed or raped etc etc. The universe could care less what we do, so it's up to us who happen to find ourselves within it to figure it out. Like the analogy I gave previously, the moral laws we make are not arbitrary, they're not objective realities, but they're not arbitrary, like the rules in baseball, the moral laws of human society, serve the best interests of the game.

[seer]

Human beings live in community seer, so we ask what it is that serves the best interests of those living together in community. So what is good is not subjective, what is good is whatever serves the best interests of the whole community. Being murdered for instance is not in the best interests of anyone, so it is outlawed as immoral, same with being robbed or raped etc etc. The universe could care less what we do, so it's up to us who happen to find ourselves within it to figure it out. Like the analogy I gave previously, the moral laws we make are not arbitrary, they're not objective realities, but they're not arbitrary, like the rules in baseball, the moral laws of human society, serve the best interests of the game.

Jim, the idea of what is best for the community as a whole, rather than what is best for the powerful elite, or what is in the best interests of the majority at the expense of the minority, is completely subjective. You can not escape that by mere assertion. And the rules of baseball are arbitrary. Why not four strikes instead of three? Why not five innings instead of nine, etc...?

[Tassman]

Jim, the idea of what is best for the community as a whole, rather than what is best for the powerful elite, or what is in the best interests of the majority at the expense of the minority, is completely subjective.

It is NOT "completely subjective"; the rules of society are grounded in natural selection and are a natural outcome of evolution. They arose because those rules were beneficial to the maintenance of the social unit and the breeding and survival of our species.

You can not escape that by mere assertion. And the rules of baseball are arbitrary. Why not four strikes instead of three? Why not five innings instead of nine, etc...?

The rules of baseball are devised in order to provide the best possible game. They may be arbitrary but must be observed nevertheless; otherwise the game will fall apart. If it is believed that changing the rules will make the game better then they can be changed.

The same applies to the rules of society.