Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[JohnA]

I never claimed all humans looks the same. You claim that there is some universal rule built-in humans that not all humans adhere to. How is that coherent?

We are born with brain structures hard wired for morality and the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong" but since we are all different the hard wiring is different too. Sometimes, like in most serial killers, we can actually see the physical deviation in the brain areas hard wired with morality which have led to the loss of their ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong". When people are put in jail or even executed we are actually selecting out people who have defective moral hard wiring from the gene pool. It is a form of human evolution by our own selection.

OK. Now you say there are faulty humans. But you said previously that this rule helps us to fix them. Am lost now.
That is why I asked you before why do we not just kill off faulty humans period? And you said this rule prevents that. Your argument is circular.

[Artie]

You claim that there is some universal rule built-in some (not all) animals that some of these animals do not adhere to.
I make no excuse for my lack of incoherency.

I won't try to guess what you mean. Try rephrasing.

[JohnA]

You claim that there is some universal rule built-in some (not all) animals that some of these animals do not adhere to.
I make no excuse for my lack of incoherency.

I won't try to guess what you mean. Try rephrasing.

You claim that there is some universal rule built-in some (not all) animals and some of these animals do not adhere to it.
Better?

[Artie]

OK. Now you say there are faulty humans. But you said previously that this rule helps us to fix them. Am lost now.

I know you are lost. Your reasoning tells us you are lost and I'm trying to help you find your way.

We have psychiatric hospitals because we should try to fix "faulty humans" because healthy humans are an asset to society. Sometimes the humans are so "faulty" they can't be fixed and end up in prison for life or in the electric chair.

That is why I asked you before why do we not just kill off faulty humans period?

We do kill off faulty humans in the electric chair or put them in prison for life. Anybody else is a possible asset to society so we do what we can to cure them.

[Artie]

You claim that there is some universal rule built-in some (not all) animals and some of these animals do not adhere to it.
Better?

No. Let me try again.

People different. People different brains. Most brains hardwired to understand difference between "right" and "wrong". Serial killers brains defective hardwiring don't understand the difference between "right" and "wrong".

Different animals, different circumstances, different evolution, different hardwiring.

[otseng]

WHAT is being discussed 'under university considerations?' What are these considerations?

Yes, the quality considerations! Not Donald Duck by Walt Disney! The valid academics...

Not the "if I'm allowed to write my own Bible with p*rn in it too?" and other verbiage.

Get it? Easy!

----
(Edit:) Plain: University = intelligence.

Moderator Comment

This post is in violation of rule 13.

13. Posts that do not meet the minimum level of readability and comprehensibility can get deleted without notice and can result in an immediate member ban.

Please, we are here for civil debate and not to post nonsensical responses.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

I'm sorry JA but IMO your incoherency cannot be challenged. Your coherency leaves a lot to be desired.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

And I disagree that such a rule can be universal for humans. We did get something from evolution, but I am not convinced that this golden rule is one of our part of it.
And and I think that science has no clear answer either.
The tomato example is relevant because all life are linked. The tomato has more genes than humans. People and tomatoes share as much as 60 percent of the same genes.
And I agree, debating point for point is pointless.

Universal for humans living in communities where cooperation enhances chances of survival. Tomatoes haven't got brains.

I've been trying to explain that to my wife for years.
To repeat, is the 'Golden Rule' much more than simple reciprocity and fairness? The ability to project onto others the same reaction you would have to events and treat them as you would want to be treated. The crushing argument is the numerous studies of animals who seem to have empathy for each other and a sense of fairness and reciprocity. If primates, elephants, man, and even rats demonstrate this, what is the objection to concluding this moral sense is the product of evolution among social animals?

[keithprosser3]

It wouldn't occur to me that our moral sense has not evolved for precisely that reason.

Humans have sense of right and wrong, and the only way we can have such a thing (assuming we were not created with one by a God) is that it evolved.

Our sense of right and wrong is at least to an extent innate and instinctual. You do not have to be taught about Kantian imperatives or Utilitarianism to know when some thing is good or evil. Certainly it does not seem fully developed in childnre but the same can be said of their linguistic and number skills.

As experiments on humans are not allowed we don't know if children would be amoral if they were not instructed. In any case a child brought up without moral guidance would be so unusual that it would not tell us much about normal development.

But if I am saying our innate moral sense is evolved, how can I at the same time argue for 'objective morality'?

I think it is because they are different things, at least as I am using the term 'objective morality'. Granted we have evolved to find senseless murder wrong because that is necessary for a social species. But whether senseless murder is wrong in an absolute sense is a separate question.

Forgive the waffle... this is something I am glimpsing but I don't see it clearly yet.

Our evolved morality is the product of our evolutionary history. Until recently we were the passive products of evolution, so our morality was dictated to us by evolution. That may have changed. We humans are now in charge of our evolution - we control our future in a way that no animal in the past ever could.

We can control our evolution, set our own goals. But to do that we have to know what morality we want for our future. Perhaps that is what I am looking for when I say 'objective morality', an ideal of morality of our future.

But I'll probably feel differently when the wine wears off!

[olavisjo]

.

If primates, elephants, man, and even rats demonstrate this, what is the objection to concluding this moral sense is the product of evolution among social animals?

You are still not understanding that evolution can't make things right and wrong. If this moral sense is just the a product of evolution, then nothing would be actually right or wrong, morality would be nothing more than arbitrary rules that enhance our ability to survive. Also, you'd have to believe that breaking these moral rules would be a legitimate evolutionary strategy.