Time For Martial Law...

[JimL]

Right yet you can not even make a non-circular argument that human survival is a moral good...

Quality of life and survival is what morality is all about, therefore life and survival is a moral good with respect to human morality. What is your argument. That survival is a moral good because God says so?

[seer]

Quality of life and survival is what morality is all about, therefore life and survival is a moral good with respect to human morality. What is your argument. That survival is a moral good because God says so?

That is like saying ant survival is a moral good - trivial.

[JimL]

That is like saying ant survival is a moral good - trivial.

Well, kind of, except the ant colonies moral framework, if you want to call it that, would be based on instinct rather than reason. I don't believe they do much thinking.

[seer]

Well, kind of, except the ant colonies moral framework, if you want to call it that, would be based on instinct rather than reason. I don't believe they do much thinking.

The end is the same - survival.

[JimL]

The end is the same - survival.

Well, most people do want to survive, seer. Even those that want to kill themselves would rather live under better circumstances. I really don't understand what your getting at with the question "why is survival a moral good", as if what is good need be objectivity detemined.

[Whateverman]

Well, most people do want to survive, seer. Even those that want to kill themselves would rather live under better circumstances. I really don't understand what your getting at with the question "why is survival a moral good", as if what is good need be objectivity detemined.

Have you read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape?

He's got a reputation as a new atheist, but while the book does touch on religion, it aims at making a case for there being an objective standard for good/bad, right/wrong. It roughly equates minimizing the suffering of conscious creatures with "good", and lays out evidence for science homing in on being able to measure levels of different kinds of suffering.

Speaking entirely for myself, I would also add that secularists/atheists have plenty of objective standards for morality - in the form of codified laws. The notion that people need some universal moral law giver to be able to live morally-acceptable lives is simply false, and objectively so.

[JimL]

Have you read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape?

He's got a reputation as a new atheist, but while the book does touch on religion, it aims at making a case for there being an objective standard for good/bad, right/wrong.

Speaking entirely for myself, I would also add that secularists/atheists have plenty of objective standards for morality - in the form of codified laws. The notion that people need some universal moral law giver to be able to live morally-acceptable lives is simply false, and objectively so.

No, I haven't read Harris, but I have tried to make that case myself, not because I believe morals have any writ in stone objective realities in and of themselves, but because there are probably moral behaviors that best suit the interests of human society.

[seer]

Have you read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape?

He's got a reputation as a new atheist, but while the book does touch on religion, it aims at making a case for there being an objective standard for good/bad, right/wrong. It roughly equates minimizing the suffering of conscious creatures with "good", and lays out evidence for science homing in on being able to measure levels of different kinds of suffering.

Speaking entirely for myself, I would also add that secularists/atheists have plenty of objective standards for morality - in the form of codified laws. The notion that people need some universal moral law giver to be able to live morally-acceptable lives is simply false, and objectively so.

Codified laws are subjective, and equating minimizing suffering with "good" is no more than an opinion. Nothing objective here.

[JimL]

Codified laws are subjective, and equating minimizing suffering with "good" is no more than an opinion. Nothing objective here.

But ones subjective bekiefs could be true, while anothers are not true, depending upon what the end goal is. And that would have nothing to do with whether those morals believed in have any objective reality in and of themselves.

[seer]

But ones subjective bekiefs could be true, while anothers are not true, depending upon what the end goal is. And that would have nothing to do with whether those morals believed in have any objective reality in and of themselves.

Right Jim it depends on one's goal, which too is subjective. The Communist has one goal. The Nazi another, the Hutu another, etc...

[Sparko]

They need to create a new Law & Order spinoff about US Marshals.

Marshal Law & Order.

[JimL]

Right Jim it depends on one's goal, which too is subjective. The Communist has one goal. The Nazi another, the Hutu another, etc...

No, the end goal is that which would be the most perfect society, regardless of what any one individual might subjectively think. You already believe that such a place exists, the only difference is that you think it's ready made for you.

[seer]

No, the end goal is that which would be the most perfect society, regardless of what any one individual might subjectively think. You already believe that such a place exists, the only difference is that you think it's ready made for you.

No Jim, that end goal is subjective, merely your opinion. The Communist end goal is to control the population by force. That is their end goal.

[JimL]

No Jim, that end goal is subjective, merely your opinion. The Communist end goal is to control the population by force. That is their end goal.

The most perfect society with respect to its individual members and society as as a whole is objective and would not be dependent upon what any one individuals subjective opinion. Like I said, you already believe in such a place, so your argument is self contradictory.

[seer]

The most perfect society with respect to its individual members and society as as a whole is objective and would not be dependent upon what any one individuals subjective opinion. Like I said, you already believe in such a place, so your argument is self contradictory.

No contradiction here Jim. If God exists then we were created for certain ends, a purpose. That is not the case with atheism. It is your opinion Jim, and nothing more, that we should seek the greater good.