Science of Morality

[Tassman]

No, I would say that children and the mentally handicapped are not morally responsible (there are different degrees of course). And "evidence?" Like your evidence for objective moral values Thinker? And you do agree that the ISIS killers are only doing what nature determined them to do - correct?

So you agree that your alleged 'libertarian free will' is logical nonsense. It cannot exist because of the many physical and subconscious factors that comprise every decision we make.

[seer]

So you agree that your alleged 'libertarian free will' is logical nonsense. It cannot exist because of the many physical and subconscious factors that comprise every decision we make.

Nope, not at all. Since I don't believe as a Christian and dualist that the will of man can be reduced to physical considerations. So LFW may not (and I stress may) work in materialism, but I'm not a materialist.

[seer]

in whatever way you can. But it seems you cannot.

No Tass, I don't need to show anything - all I need to do is to make it clear that you can not prove that this universe is "natural" or that the "natural" is all that exists

Don't try to drag me down to your delusional level, seer. They are empirically verified fact beliefs.

Well no, that is your faith Tass, empirically verify that this is a "natural" universe or that the "natural" is all that exists.



Sorry, I asked you first, you keep saying that this is a deterministic universe - do you agree that on the quantum level that it is not? Whether that is an opening for LFW is not in question right now.

Once again: These behaviours are enforced according to the natures of the various species.

What part of this don't you understand? Waiting?

I will ask again; When one group of male chimps kills another group of male chimps and take their females and territory how are the morally responsible? Still waiting for a direct answer.

[The Thinker]

No, I would say that children and the mentally handicapped are not morally responsible (there are different degrees of course). And "evidence?" Like your evidence for objective moral values Thinker? And you do agree that the ISIS killers are only doing what nature determined them to do - correct?

Um yes, I've given you plenty of evidence for objective moral values over a period of two months, and I successfully showed that grounding morality in god is totally unintelligible and forces you into a trilemma. As far as ISIS, you want to believe they have free will right? Well, make a positive argument showing free will exists. I've challenged you to that for weeks and weeks to coherently explain it, and all I hear is crickets. You're a joke seer. Who can take you serious?

[seer]

Um yes, I've given you plenty of evidence for objective moral values over a period of two months, and I successfully showed that grounding morality in god is totally unintelligible and forces you into a trilemma. As far as ISIS, you want to believe they have free will right? Well, make a positive argument showing free will exists. I've challenged you to that for weeks and weeks to coherently explain it, and all I hear is crickets. You're a joke seer. Who can take you serious?

Thinker, are you deluded? You have offered nothing concerning objective ethics beside your own opinion. And since you don't believe that men do have free will, how are they logically responsible? ISIS killers are only doing what they are determined to do. How can that be wrong?

[Tassman]

Nope, not at all. Since I don't believe as a Christian and dualist that the will of man can be reduced to physical considerations

So LFW may not (and I stress may) work in materialism, but I'm not a materialist.

[Tassman]

No Tass, I don't need to show anything - all I need to do is to make it clear that you can not prove that this universe is "natural" or that the "natural" is all that exists.

Well no, that is your faith Tass, empirically verify that this is a "natural" universe or that the "natural" is all that exists.

Sorry, I asked you first, you keep saying that this is a deterministic universe - do you agree that on the quantum level that it is not? Whether that is an opening for LFW is not in question right now.

I will ask again; When one group of male chimps kills another group of male chimps and take their females and territory how are the morally responsible? Still waiting for a direct answer.

[seer]

Then present your evidence that this universe is "natural" i.e. was created by a natural source or cause. If you can't, then you have no real idea if this is a "natural" universe, it is a faith position on your end.


But I'm not claiming anything about LFW at this point. You keep making the claim that LFW is not possible in a deterministic universe, OK fine - so the first question is, is the universe really deterministic. Is the quantum world, which underpins all matter and energy, deterministic Tass? Why are you afraid to answer this.



Again Tass, you have avoided a direct answer to my question: When one group of male chimps kills another group of male chimps and take their females and territory how are the morally responsible? And I would also say that the killer chimps had a better survival strategy since they thrived after killing the weaker chimps and taking their females and territory - you agree that it was a good survival strategy - correct?

[Tassman]

Then present your evidence that this universe is "natural" i.e. was created by a natural source or cause. If you can't, then you have no real idea if this is a "natural" universe, it is a faith position on your end.

But I'm not claiming anything about LFW at this point. You keep making the claim that LFW is not possible in a deterministic universe, OK fine - so the first question is, is the universe really deterministic. Is the quantum world, which underpins all matter and energy, deterministic Tass? Why are you afraid to answer this.

Again Tass, you have avoided a direct answer to my question: When one group of male chimps kills another group of male chimps and take their females and territory how are the morally responsible? And I would also say that the killer chimps had a better survival strategy since they thrived after killing the weaker chimps and taking their females and territory - you agree that it was a good survival strategy - correct?

[seer]

No Tass, that is why I asked - what would a "natural" universe look like compared to a universe that did not have a natural source. You had no answer.



Again Tass no, one of your main arguments against the possibility of LFW was the fact that we live in a deterministic universe - just admit that we don't and we can move on.


And of course you again did not answer the main question: When one group of male chimps kills another group of male chimps and take their females and territory how are the morally responsible? And I'm not sure what is "sad" about what ISIS is doing - they are only doing what nature determined them to do. Is it "sad" when a large fish eats a smaller fish?

[David Hayward]

Here's something for AlecWelsh to read, if he's still interested in arguing for a scientific morality based upon maximising the well being of all sentient creatures. It's the recent "" post on the 'Evolution Is True' website by a certain Jerry Coyne.

Coyne disagrees with the ideas which Sam Harris proposed a few years ago in his "The Moral Landscape" book; and unless I am very mistaken Coyne also disagrees with the Harris-look-alike ideas AlecWelsh started this thread with.

[seer]

Here's something for AlecWelsh to read, if he's still interested in arguing for a scientific morality based upon maximising the well being of all sentient creatures. It's the recent "" post on the 'Evolution Is True' website by a certain Jerry Coyne.

Coyne disagrees with the ideas which Sam Harris proposed a few years ago in his "The Moral Landscape" book; and unless I am very mistaken Coyne also disagrees with the Harris-look-alike ideas AlecWelsh started this thread with.

Thanks for the link...

[JimL]

Here's something for AlecWelsh to read, if he's still interested in arguing for a scientific morality based upon maximising the well being of all sentient creatures. It's the recent "" post on the 'Evolution Is True' website by a certain Jerry Coyne.

Coyne disagrees with the ideas which Sam Harris proposed a few years ago in his "The Moral Landscape" book; and unless I am very mistaken Coyne also disagrees with the Harris-look-alike ideas AlecWelsh started this thread with.

I would argue that human morals are objective in that they pertain to the best interests of human beings and so are not applicable to other species. In other words morals are objective laws, objective in that following them is that which is in the best interests of human beings and human society. They, morals, are not objective in and of themselves such that they have an existence of their own apart from humanity, but they are objective in the sense that they are the right way rather than the wrong way to go in order to reach the target, i.e the best interests of human society. I would then argue that what is in the best interests of human society as a whole is objective, which is what gives the morals themselves their objectivity. Or something like that!

[JimL]

No Tass, that is why I asked - what would a "natural" universe look like compared to a universe that did not have a natural source. You had no answer.

A natural universe would look exactly like the one that you exist in.

[seer]

A natural universe would look exactly like the one that you exist in.

How do you know that? What would you compare it to?