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]

[Artie]

Criminal liability follows from the combination of a wrongful act and a guilty mind, never from one of those alone. I find this a good approach to moral responsibility as well. A bad intention is not reprehensible unless it manifests itself in a wrongful act, and a wrongful act is not morally bad unless it is a manifestation of a bad intention.

Yes. That makes sense. Suppose a chimp looks with envy on some other chimps food and decides to steal it and actually does the act. That would be morally reprehensible and an immoral act. I wonder at which species it would stop being an immoral act. It must be in a species where the stealing is not a conscious act.

[keithprosser3]

Pass - but I'd be surprised to find anything but instinct in anything that didn't have a big brain, so anything except largeish mammals could well be ruled out.

[NoisForm]

...a wrongful act is not morally bad unless it is a manifestation of a bad intention.

So say, (hypothetically, of course!) 'some dictator' actually had the best of intentions - ridding the world of a depraved and subhuman segment of humanity, in order to strengthen and ultimately 'perfect' our species so that we might all prosper?

So long as this fella 'thought' he was doing good, despite how incomprehesibly vile his actions might be viewed by many, his actions are moral because his "intentions" were good? Does that really work?

[keithprosser3]

Always a good idea to turn things around.

So, suppose someone believed that the worse thing you could do was to give strangers all the help you possibly can and so did 'good things' thinking they were bad because he really wanted to do evil?

Would he be worthy of praise?

[instantc]

...a wrongful act is not morally bad unless it is a manifestation of a bad intention.

So say, (hypothetically, of course!) 'some dictator' actually had the best of intentions - ridding the world of a depraved and subhuman segment of humanity, in order to strengthen and ultimately 'perfect' our species so that we might all prosper?

So long as this fella 'thought' he was doing good, despite how incomprehesibly vile his actions might be viewed by many, his actions are moral because his "intentions" were good? Does that really work?

That's not a good intention. By 'good intention' I mean an intention to do something we would consider good. Suppose there is a man is punching another man in the alley, and a bypasser decides to stop the assault by attacking the perpetrator. Now, he later finds out that it was merely a play practice by a local drama club. Thus, what he did was in fact a wrongful act, but we don't punish people for such acts as long as the intention was clearly good, despite of the actual circumstances.

[NoisForm]

(*corrected my spelling)

...a wrongful act is not morally bad unless it is a manifestation of a bad intention.

So say, (hypothetically, of course!) 'some dictator' actually had the best of intentions - ridding the world of a depraved and subhuman segment of humanity, in order to strengthen and ultimately 'perfect' our species so that we might all prosper?

So long as this fella 'thought' he was doing good, despite how *incomprehensibly vile his actions might be viewed by many, his actions are moral because his "intentions" were good? Does that really work?

That's not a good intention. By 'good intention' I mean an intention to do something we would consider good. Suppose there is a man is punching another man in the alley, and a bypasser decides to stop the assault by attacking the perpetrator. Now, he later finds out that it was merely a play practice by a local drama club. Thus, what he did was in fact a wrongful act, but we don't punish people for such acts as long as the intention was clearly good, despite of the actual circumstances.

So then, it doesn't appear to be about the 'intention' of the actor at all, but rather about the hypothetical "we's" opinion of the act itself. The intention of the dictator in my scenario was quite 'good' (by what standards?) - "to strengthen and ultimately 'perfect' our species so that we might all prosper". The act, in the opinion of this 'we', was quite bad (again, by which standards)?

[NoisForm]

Always a good idea to turn things around.

So, suppose someone believed that the worse thing you could do was to give strangers all the help you possibly can and so did 'good things' thinking they were bad because he really wanted to do evil?

Would he be worthy of praise?

Interesting - it doesn't appear to work in either direction. No, this individual is not worthy of praise at all (full disclosure; setting aside quite a lot of beliefs about 'intent' to discuss this hypothetically, for the sake of argument).

[JohnA]

I do not love my enemies.
Would you love my enemies?
If yes, then you are breaking this golden rule, because you're not being reciprocal to me.
If no, then you are breaking this golden rule, because you're not being reciprocal to my enemies.

I can't disagree

This golden rules makes 2 assumptions:
1. All people are the same
2. You know all people's wants and needs.

This golden rule is therefore patently absurdly inconsistent.

Need I say more?

1. I don't see how this is an assumption of the Golden Rule
2. I don't see this either

Maybe you just had a long day, sigh.

Imagine I did not tell that "I do not love my enemies." Try and answer "Would you love my enemies? "


Also, imagine person A is pro choice, person B is pro life.
Person A wants to have an abortion. What would person B say or do?
Assuming person B knows that person A is pro choice, will person B push for pro choice or pro life?
Assuming person B does not know that person A is pro choice, will person B push for pro choice or pro life?
hmmmm.....
Now, imagine person A is pro choice, person B is pro choice.
What now?

Same thing goes for voting for a political party. Surely the candidate wants you to vote for him, so why are some not?
What about if you want to make an investment. According to this golden rule, everyone should allow you to do this, even if this may be an investment that would ruin you.
There are countless examples.
In fact, there are many criticisms of this golden rule, and many alternative suggestions. And this golden rule is not backed by science at all, there is no evidence for it, other than it being faulty wishful thinking.
Check Google search and learn yourself.

Here is a good one:
"If a person avows that they treat others the way they wish to be treated, then they define their adversaries, aren't they saying that they wish to be defined by their adversaries?
If they criticize their adversaries, aren’t they saying that they wish to be criticized by their adversaries?"


More....

The Golden Rule disregards moral autonomy
The Golden Rule can be used to justify oppression
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Trea ... .rule.html
etc.

You could say (as some of this thread argue):
"Their attitude is an academic equivalent of the George Bush view of the world: America is always right, because America says so."
Some theists, says: God exists, because the bible says so.
The golden rule exists and is true (a product of evolution), because the description of the golden rule says so.

There are inadmissible evidence for a non-existing god because the god appeared and said he is not a god.
There is a contraction of god's omniscience and human free-will, but human free-will does not exist.

Sure, you could say a person that utters the above 2 claims (if you could call it that) would be the one that rejects science, logic, and rationality, and say:
The golden rule exists and is true (a product of evolution), because the description of the golden rule says so.

I would not buy that. Will you?

[JohnA]

Need I say more?

Yes, you need to explain why we shouldn't live by the motto "if you want help, help others" and why it would be bad for us?

But that is not the golden rule (One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.)

Offering Obscurantism is not a nice thing to do here.

Read this:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 463#611463

[JohnA]

We observe the mechanisms and gravity emerges from that. I can observe another person standing on earth (or moving if you like).
I explained what these laws are already. You can look up law as well if you do not accept my fact.

I am prepared to accept you can observe another person standing on the earth (or moving if you like) without looking it up.

My point - as I am sure everyone else realised - is that people don't observe mechanisms. We observe phenomena and theorise about the possible mechanisms behind them.

I will now argue that the Golden rule and Newtons law of gravity are exactly the same 'sort of thing'.

Newton's law of gravity is a rule that old Isaac came up with to describe how planets and apples behave when they are moving or falling.

Similarly the golden rule is a rule someone came up with to describe how people behave when they acting morally.

Newton rule is a bit off - Einstein's version is better. And the Golden rule is a bit off too, because there are problems with it - a masochist applying the golden rule would not be acting morally for example.

What we could do with is a refinement of the golden rule, a 'Einsteinian' uber-golden rule that applies to masochists as well. It doesn't matter whether we say the golden rule exists or doesn't exist or if its true or not true..... those are pointless word games that don't actually matter one bit.

You are assuming that the mechanism = gravity.
That is wrong.
The mechanism is the force, or fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime.
We can measure the force, we can observe the space-time curvature (GPS satellite atomic clocks running at a different "speed" as clocks on earth, light from distant stars being bent round the sun.

I will now argue that the Golden rule and Newtons law of gravity are exactly the same 'sort of thing'.

You are merely being circular here. You first assume it is to argue it is.
Will you also argue that god and evolution is exactly the same 'sort of thing' because they can both be used to explain the diversity of life (for one you offer a collection of books and for the other scientific fact(s)?

Newton's law of gravity is a rule that old Isaac came up with to describe how planets and apples behave when they are moving or falling.

So, you are assuming that a scientific law = psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion's rule.

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

This golden rule is not based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. This rule does not always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.
e.g.: Will you love my enemies for me?

Newton rule is a bit off

That is just absurd. If it was then it would not be a scientific law. LOL. Furthermore, it works, applies under the same conditions. There are some conditions that it does not apply, but these are clearly known, and Newton's law of gravity does not claim it applies there. General Relativity theory is an explanation of Newton's Law and uses it (e.g the gravitational force is a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, the Gravitational constant, etc.)
Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Darn, I did this at uni and still do, so am I wrong to use it as is (ignoring your assertion that "It is a bit off" and that Einstein has a better law), are other scientists wrong in using Classical Mechanics? We know Where AND why AND When to use Relativity and do when appropriate. In fact, in the quantum world we do not use gravity at all, yet your computer works. What now?

You are also confused about a scientific law and a sceintific theory.
When we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes WHY the objects attract each other. While Newton's law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. We use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain WHY things fall.

It doesn't matter whether we say the golden rule exists or doesn't exist or if its true or not true..... those are pointless word games that don't actually matter one bit.

So, why do you argue it is "similar" to the Newtonian Gravity?
Are you now agreeing with me that this golden rule is pure wishful thinking?
(e.g. it does not apply under all conditions it claims and rely on assumptions - http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 463#611463 )




I hope this is more clear now. I want a reply from you, to tell me why you still think you are right here.