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]

[Danmark]

.

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.

We're looking at this from very different points of view. BTW, I don't find the word 'objective' very useful in this discussion. I consider the formulations for the 'Golden rule' objective in the sense that virtually everyone agrees this is the right way to behave.

I think what you are talking about are 'absolute' morals, from some point of view outside of man and beyond the Earth, or even Universe. By definition then, this sense of moral rules would have to come from 'the very ground of being,' or if you will, 'God.'

I think, but of course am open to instruction, that this view of 'right and wrong' is circular. It proclaims that 'right and wrong con only come from God; that its very definition is 'God.' Perhaps you can reference the kind of 'right and wrong' you are talking about without reference to 'god.' Can you?

[olavisjo]

.

We're looking at this from very different points of view. BTW, I don't find the word 'objective' very useful in this discussion. I consider the formulations for the 'Golden rule' objective in the sense that virtually everyone agrees this is the right way to behave.

Yes, we do look at it from very different points of view. I too, don't find the word 'objective' very useful in this discussion, I would rather use the definition of the word. I consider the formulations for the 'Golden rule' right, even if virtually no one agrees that this is the right way to behave.

Perhaps you can reference the kind of 'right and wrong' you are talking about without reference to 'god.' Can you?

No. I don't understand it, I only know that it exists. It is something that I don't think I will ever understand, but I don't need to understand it. It is enough to just trust, experience and obey it.

[JohnA]

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.

Well, I think evolution gave all living things something to try and survive. Our interpretation may be this golden rule, which is flawed; either our interpretation of it, or the rule itself. And my basis for this is that this rule is not universal across life or across humans.
And my evidence is Danmark's treatment of me, and prisons and other life (having brains or not) do not adhere to it. Besides, 99.9% of all things that ever lived are extinct today. We have much to learn.

[JohnA]

.

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.

You do not need something more to explain something more. All you need is the laws of nature and chance: no need for the supernatural.
Ever heard of Novel prize winner Murray Gell-Mann?


I find it hilarious that one can say what evolution is not, when a person do not know what it is, reject it, and refuse to learn about it.
Any content of posts containing this type comedy can not be coherent, can not be taken seriously.

[TheJoshAbideth]

.

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.

You are right. Evolution can't make things right and wrong - this is because there is no such thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense.

The better way to look at it is that the process of evolution favors characteristics that are favorable vs. characteristics that are unfavorable.

Civilization is the driving force behind our species propagation, and so tendencies that complement cohabitation are favorable. Thus morality, lest we were to exist in a vacuum.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionary strategy".

[Artie]

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.

No, breaking these moral rules would not be a legitimate evolutionary strategy because that would mean less chance of survival. That is the whole point.

[Artie]

Well, I think evolution gave all living things something to try and survive. Our interpretation may be this golden rule, which is flawed; either our interpretation of it, or the rule itself. And my basis for this is that this rule is not universal across life or across humans.

If you don't understand that different circumstances and environments require different survival strategies then it's hopeless to try to explain. Of course a human in New York and a lion in the Serengeti can't behave in the same way and live by the same rules. If you don't see that, then we have no hope of making you understand our explanations.

[JohnA]

Well, I think evolution gave all living things something to try and survive. Our interpretation may be this golden rule, which is flawed; either our interpretation of it, or the rule itself. And my basis for this is that this rule is not universal across life or across humans.

If you don't understand that different circumstances and environments require different survival strategies then it's hopeless to try to explain. Of course a human in New York and a lion in the Serengeti can't behave in the same way and live by the same rules. If you don't see that, then we have no hope of making you understand our explanations.

But you have not explained anything. You just asserted that there is a golden rule. I reject this and I have given you a base and evidence.
People in arctic are in a different environment that people in mid Africa; they even look different! Yet I can get examples where some of these people in either environment have deviated form this rule. There is NO scientific evidence that remotely conclude that there is such a golden rule. I would evenday that it is controversial to evolution. We got something from evolution, it must have evolved (or even maybe built-in from the start - 1st living 'thing' - but evolved to be something different now), and you have not convinced me at all it is this golden rule.
If anything, this is like religion, just pure wishful thinking (probably a copy from that baby Jesus demigod guy).

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 429 by Artie]

I just want to make sure and clarify that those arguing about evolution understand that there are no strategies when it comes to "the theory of evolution by natural selection" right...?

The word strategy implies purpose and intent, and this is not the case at all.

Macro evolution is the process by which speciation occurs through random genetic mutations then selected by the environment for their complementary characteristics.

Just making sure is all.

[JohnA]

Thank you. And I agree with your post. There is no purpose, no strategies for survival. You make your own purpose. And this is another reason why this golden rule is rubbish; pure wishful thinking based on a demigod.

I have read somewhere that there is now a claim for non-random mutations for non-random natural selection. It's this true? I try not to read rubbish that has not been peer reviewed and accepted by science. Was wondering is this is one of those creatard false claims.