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 think we formed these murder laws because of our evolutionary ethics and empathy. I can not explain it of it is "built-in" or evolved.

Both "built-in" and evolved. Our brains come with morality "built-in" because that's how our brains evolved since those with morality "built-in" stood a better chance of surviving in a social context.

Am also not convinced it is in all living things because of the fact that life eats/kills life to survive. But we have observed empathy in other animals.

Morality is just the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong". There's nothing wrong about killing and eating to survive if that's how the animal evolved.

Perhaps us human animals developed this Murder 'law' to protect ourselves from extinction, to protect ourselves from people wanting to minimize survival (maximize extinction / suffering) of the our species.

We didn't "develop" this "Murder law" we just put into writing what was already hard wired into our brains.

There are obviously exceptions and those we send to prison because they don't "appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule'."

If they do not appreciate it, how can this "Golden Rule" be 'true for humans'? You could say that these humans are 'faulty', which would be acceptable. But why would this "Golden Rule" not be faulty instead or too?

We evolved morals like the Golden Rule because they helped us survive. If morals like the Golden Rule had been "faulty" we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Both "built-in" and evolved. Our brains come with morality "built-in" because that's how our brains evolved since those with morality "built-in" stood a better chance of surviving in a social context.

But some people have a different "morality as others. That is why some are in prison.
We also developed from a common ancestor. SO why does ALL life not have this "built-in"?

Morality is just the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong". There's nothing wrong about killing and eating to survive if that's how the animal evolved

What is ethics and empathy then? Why not kill animals, why do we have laws against that (well against some animals, not ants or flies)? Why not kill the "faulty" humans (I do not suggest this in any way ) ?

We didn't "develop" this "Murder law" we just put into writing what was already hard wired into our brains.

Again, why do other animals kill their own kind then?
By develop I actually meant to write it down. But we went further, we also wrote down that we should not kill the weak, even if they may harm the future survival of our species.

We evolved morals like the Golden Rule because they helped us survive. If morals like the Golden Rule had been "faulty" we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Now you saying the golden rule evolved, but previously you said it was "built-in". I agree that we got here (evolved to become humans) before we have "developed/wrote down laws". That is what tells me there is indeed something built-in or evolved in human animals.
Other animals kill their weak or abandon them to die. The tomato seeds I sown did not all come up, some of the weaker ones died out or I killed it. This is clearly not the case in humans these days.
Am not convinced that this Golden rule exists. Like I said, I accept evolution, make no mistake. I just can not explain it. And this Golden rule can not be true, because of what Danmark did to me. Either he is at fault here, or the Gulden rule is false/faulty or both. It is clear that this Golden rule does not apply to all things that evolved.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 384 by Bust Nak]

Thanks for your reply.

Am sure, or hope, that you understand my position now. If not, then I failed in my explanation, or you just did not understand it.

I can not debate in the style that you do, so I concede. If this was about winning or losing, then I will let you take it because I am waiving the white flag now.

Have a good day.

BTW. I never accused you of dishonesty.
I said you are attempting at straw manning me and quote mining me. Notice, "attempting" and straw man and quote mining is not dishonesty in my books. And yes, you did straw man me, and I pointed it out.

There was a few things that caught my interest. But am not going to go on woo whoo anymore. I do not do this sentence by sentence debate. It is pointless especially if it is getting this long, and the points being debated are across sentences.

Incorrect, it would not necessarily wrong for you to break the law, it could be well be wrong for you to break the law.

I could not let this go. Are you saying you are not sure if it is wrong to break the law?

No where have I said that I do not know why something is wrong

But you can not tell me why apartheid is wrong and you admitted by saying it is just your opinion.

How is that not an answer you your question - you asked me why apartheid wrong, and I answered "I don't like seeing people suffer" which in turn boils down to "they are wrong because in my opinion they are wrong."

So it is wrong because you can not tell me why you don't like to see people suffer.

I do know why something is wrong - it is wrong with in my opinion they are wrong.

How is that an answer?
But my answer to you is the same, but you reject that.

There is nothing wrong with using "philosophical boxes" as you call it.

But it changes (as you admitted), so that is what is wrong, it can not be right.

Because loaded questions cannot be answered

But you said that you did answer my questions in the opening :

That is simply false, anyone can look up and see your questions answered.

Hmmmm.
Besides, your opinion tells you what is wrong and right. So how can your opinion fail now, fail to distinguish between the two? or are both beautifully equally right?

I am not denying that you explained it. I am saying I still don't get your explaination.

At least I tried. All you say is it is your opinion that tells you what is right and wrong. based on this, why is my "better in my opinion" explanation not acceptable?

What are you saying here? Are you denying that you deny the existence of objective moral law, yet you reject the idea that morality is a matter of opinion?

I reject the existence of "objective moral law" and already told you why.
idea that morality is a matter of opinion - we got something from evolution (which I can not explain better than I already did), and we authored laws and are still authoring it which is based on opinion. Some of this opinion comes from the evolution "built-in/evolved bit" and some we just based purely on opinion (consensus, public debate, etc.).

But I can deny your accusation of strawman and quote mines, as well as inconsistencies.

Without success. The evidence is recorded.

[10CC]

Why do I feel a desperate urge to look for razor blades and hungrily eye my wrists whenever JA posts?

Is it just me?

[keithprosser3]

Are you sure they are YOUR wrists?

[JohnA]

Because of my lack of incoherency?
Or what that just another back hand insult, a new tactic?

[keithprosser3]

Half right.

[JohnA]

What half?
How do you know you can half it?

[10CC]

Are you sure they are YOUR wrists?

Well then there is that keith.

My eyesight after the operations has improved to 20/20 apparently but from here I can only see my wrists.

[JohnA]

Are you sure they are YOUR wrists?

Well then there is that keith.

My eyesight after the operations has improved to 20/20 apparently but from here I can only see my wrists.

Why do you dislike my posts?
Or is it just me you dislike? (for questioning your 'MPG post')
Or my lack of incoherency?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 384 by Bust Nak]
BTW. I never accused you of dishonesty.
I said you are attempting at straw manning me and quote mining me. Notice, "attempting" and straw man and quote mining is not dishonesty in my books. And yes, you did straw man me, and I pointed it out.

Strawmaning could be a simple mistake, but quote mining is dishonesty. Hence the negative reaction. Don't accuse people of quote mining unless if you think they are doing it on purpose.

Incorrect, it would not necessarily wrong for you to break the law, it could be well be wrong for you to break the law.

I could not let this go. Are you saying you are not sure if it is wrong to break the law?

I am saying in some cases it is wrong, in others cases it is not wrong. It depends on the exact curcumstances.

So it is wrong because you can not tell me why you don't like to see people suffer.

I do know why something is wrong - it is wrong with in my opinion they are wrong.

How is that an answer?
But my answer to you is the same, but you reject that.

I am wired by evolutionary biology to not like to see people suffer, it is the reason why I do not like to see people suffer; however it is not the reason why the apartheid are wrong. That I do not like it is why the apartheid are wrong.
Just as I am wired by evolutionary biology to like sweet and fatty food, it is the reason why I like ice cream; however that is not the reason why ice-cream is tasty. That I like ice-cream is why it is tasty.

But it changes (as you admitted), so that is what is wrong, it can not be right.

That can be said for any and every definition/language. It's a necessity of life, as opposed to a flaw.

Hmmmm.
Besides, your opinion tells you what is wrong and right. So how can your opinion fail now, fail to distinguish between the two? or are both beautifully equally right?

I don't know what you are referring to by my opinion failing.

At least I tried. All you say is it is your opinion that tells you what is right and wrong. based on this, why is my "better in my opinion" explanation not acceptable?

What exactly is better in your opinion? You were talking about self-defence and making/having laws by voting. Had you have said morality was a matter of opinion there would have been no misunderstanding.

I reject the existence of "objective moral law" and already told you why.
idea that morality is a matter of opinion - we got something from evolution (which I can not explain better than I already did), and we authored laws and are still authoring it which is based on opinion. Some of this opinion comes from the evolution "built-in/evolved bit" and some we just based purely on opinion (consensus, public debate, etc.).

So some opinion are built in and evolved, but other kinds of opinion are pure opinion?

Without success. The evidence is recorded.

Opinion differs on that. I think the evidence is well in my favor.