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]

[instantc]

We should use our reasoning ability to figure out [...] the action leading to the well being and survival for the most amount of people.

Why should we?

[Artie]

You said that the golden rule has been around for ages on the grounds that people's early behavior resembled that. My point is that just because people in early societies treated each other nicely doesn't mean that they recognized that behavior as morally preferable, there is no evidence that they were even capable of any kind of moral considerations. Thus, people's altruistic behavior back then didn't necessarily have anything to do with moral values.

Here is an interesting article:

"Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/scien ... d=all&_r=0

[Artie]

We should use our reasoning ability to figure out [...] the action leading to the well being and survival for the most amount of people.

Why should we?

Because we are a part of the community and the more stable the community and the more members we help the more likely we are to receive help when we need it and if all follow the same policy it increases all our chances of survival.

[keithprosser3]

the more members we help

But do things come down to numbers?

Suppose there was something a person could do that would greatly enhance the well-being of their family (especially their kids), but it would hurt society as a whole.

a) what would they do?
b) what should they do?

[Artie]

the more members we help

But do things come down to numbers?

Suppose there was something a person could do that would greatly enhance the well-being of their family (especially their kids), but it would hurt society as a whole.

a) what would they do?
b) what should they do?

Would have to know the particulars of the case. Read about kin selection.

[NoisForm]

You have not responded directly to what I have written, here or elsewhere the best I can tell (the quote function is invaluable). So, let's try once more...

You said;

...You guys are the one making this claim that the Golden rule exists and are "built-in or evolved.
...You claim it has, that this golden rule exists (other than a rule of thumb or wishful thinking).

...and I say again, with an addition;

Please quote where I have made either of these claims, or retract the statements per the forum rules. I made neither claim, and you are misrepresenting what I have actually posted. Please correct your error. This is my second attempt to get you to see that you are mistaken.

...and again, since you seem to have missed it...

Artie's claim was this;

they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities.

...and, again, your response was;

How is it advantageous?
Can you reference any peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community to support your claim?

So again, please pay attention here, the claim you asked for peer reviewed support for was that, "behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities". You asked how is it advantageous, and if peer reviewed sources could be supplied to back this up. You were given this.

As I said, this is exactly what I provided for you, from multiple sources.

Right. Now you are denying that we are debating if this golden rule exists or not.

Why yes, that is what I am saying, since I never made the claim. Nor was this the claim that you asked evidence for, as I've just explained to you, yet again. You asked for evidence (peer reviewed) that supported the claim, "they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities". I gave you that.

So you are not claiming that this Golden rule exists (other than just wishful thinking, a definition)?

Correct, that is also a claim that I did not make. Please use the quote function if you wish to show me where I made such a claim.

Is that why you tried to project this golden rule onto evolution?

Again, simply show me where I attempted to do this - problem solved. What I actually did, is show that there are several peer reviewed sources that credit evolution/natural selection for what we have labeled 'the golden rule'. I did this, again, because this is what you requested. You have it.

We have been discussing the existence of the Golden rule as a 'product' or 'part' of evolution, both of you projected this.

I'm not certain what you mean I 'projected' it. I supplied peer reviewed sources that clearly show such a connection, nothing more.

That is the scientific journal that I want. If your can not produce it, then you are in error to say this rule exists as something that evolution gave us (or whoever you trying to claim got/has it).

You have been given this from multiple sources. I'm beginning to think you are being willfully obtuse. Surely not?

I see your post above as your way of conceding; this Golden rule is just pure wishful thinking, a definition of 2 words strung together, nothing more.

As yet, I have expressed no personal opinions about whether or not the golden rule is a product of evolution, only the findings of various peer reviewed scientific studies which indicate that yes, it is.

If not, then formulate your claim and present your argument (with evidence).

What claim would that be, exactly? That there is peer reviewed literature that demonstrates that "they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities". I've done this, and you've yet to respond to the actual request you made of Artie, and the actual evidence I supplied to you. Can you not do so?

[keithprosser3]

Read about kin selection

I know about kin selection - that's why I posed the questions I did. I just wondered people seem to be ignoring it. Perhaps someone did and I missed it.

[NoisForm]

You clearly have no peer reviewed scientific journal(s) to show this rubbish Golden rule exists...

It occurs to me, incredulous as I may be about this, that you're primary objection with the numerous sources you've been provided with, may actually be that they did not use the specific words, 'golden' and 'rule'. I'd like to think I'm wrong about that (it might not feel like such a huge waste of time if I am!), but I've a feeling that this is, in fact, what you take issue with.

You seem a tad obsessed with the term 'golden rule', as opposed to what it actually is. You do understand that 'golden rule' is essentially a philosophical/religious term of art, yes? Further, that this term actually has a meaning, and that one can discuss and investigate this meaning without actually using the term?

If I used the following; "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)", would you insist that I wasn't describing a circle...because I didn't use the word 'circle'? Seriously?

This is why I provided what it actually was for you in my very first post ("ethic of reciprocity"), along with some synonyms, in hopes that my supplying it might avoid the barrage of nonsense that has followed (but alas). If you don't understand the base meaning of the term we're discussing, how could you possibly know if someone is discussing it in any of my sources? Apparently, you cannot.

Did you actually expect that such a term would be flung about willy-nilly in a scientific journal? I certainly wouldn't. That is not, generally speaking, the language of science. What I would expect to find, is an exploration of how various mechanisms might bring it about, make it beneficial, etc. They do so by describing it, its components, and how it might function. They use terms such as reciprocity, cooperation, altruism, etc. These all describe and define, quite elegantly I think, what the 'golden rule' actually is.

But hey, I'm game. Let's see if we can find some qualified scientists who use the specific term 'golden rule', just to satisfy your - in my opinion somewhat bizarre - request (spoiler:we can);

There's this (conveniently titled just for you it would seem, "The Evolution of the Golden Rule"), from the AAAS ("the world's largest and most prestigious general scientific society")

There's an entire book written on the subject by Donald Pfaff, Ph.D., head of the Laboratory of Neurobiology and Behavior at Rockefeller University, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It is entitled "The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule". Does this Ph.D. count as 'qualified' in your opinion?

Perhaps Robert Wright would suffice? He studied both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology at Princeton, then taught graduate seminars at same. One of which he co-taught with Peter Singer on the biological basis for moral intuition. He gave a 'Ted Talk' in '09 where he, "uses evolutionary biology and game theory to explain why we appreciate the Golden Rule".

There is Frans B. M. de Waal, Ph.D., a Dutch-born pri­ma­tol­o­gist, ...C. H. Can­dler Pro­fes­sor at Emory Uni­ver­sity and direc­tor of the Liv­ing Links Cen­ter at the Yerkes National Pri­mate Research Cen­ter in Atlanta. He also makes the link quite clearly. Here's an article from him (in association with 'Greater Good' magazine, of U of C, Berkeley) where he explores the idea. From the link;

"We are so used to empa­thy that we take it for granted, yet it is essen­tial to human soci­ety as we know it. Our moral­ity depends on it: How could any­one be expected to fol­low the golden rule with­out the capac­ity to men­tally trade places with a fel­low human being? It is log­i­cal to assume that this capac­ity came first, giv­ing rise to the golden rule itself."

So there you go - some highly educated, well respected scientists actually using the specific term 'golden rule' in connection with evolution. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you'll attempt to find some way to weasel out of even this? Heh. Gotta' love some dogma.

[JohnA]

Everything exists until shown not to? God and the Golden rule too? Or is it just your opinion that you have no opinion on a god/gods existence? This type cognitive signals from you says much more about your ability to deliver than you think.

You have the burden of proof. You know what to do. Define your claim and your argument. You clearly have no peer reviewed scientific journal(s) to show this rubbish Golden rule exists (other that just just wishful thinking, like gods). You can not define things into existence.

Get working on it or concede.

Another irrational post. The Golden Rule exists.

"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality[2] that essentially states ... the following:
(Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

NoisForm has already provided you with documentation.

Another irrational post.

What is irrational?
It is me asking you to live up to your burden of proof?
It is me asking you to define your claim?
It is me asking you to state your argument?
It is me asking you to provide your evidence?

The Golden Rule exists.

OK, I need to back tract here.
The refusal to answer the above is starting to make sense; it's to do with cognitive signals.
What do you mean by exists?

Do you mean exists in the sense of an entry in Wikipedia or some dictionaries? Sure, then it exists AS A DEFINITION, an abstract concept. . But that does not mean it is REAL, it does not mean it's a concrete object, something science can observe/test. You can not define something into existence. We find the definition of god in dictionaries and Wikipedia. That does not mean it exists in real life as some concrete object of a being that can do magic tricks, or whatevea.



You can not even define your claim. You have no argument, no evidence.

I asked that you get working on it or concede.
You have not provided anything new here, so why do you not concede? Your concession is merely a signal that you agree with current science (it's not a signal that you lost this debate with me).

Gee.

[JohnA]

A classic example is adultery. Most adulterers accept what they are doing is wrong, but do it anyway - or so I'm told!

All humans struggle with an inner conflict between an instinct to behave selfishly and and instinct to behave altruistically. Put on top of that our ability to reason - to consider the consequences of our actions for ourselves and for others - and it's obvious why it's not possible to reduce actual human behaviour to a simple slogan.

Humans don't behave according to the golden rule - ask any hangman if he does. The question is should we behave according to it?

Am glad you agree that this golden rule is just wishful thinking, a description in Wikipedia and some dictionaries. This golden rule is not something that is built-into us or evolved. It is merely a rule of thumb, a nice nice thing or not.

All humans struggle with an inner conflict between an instinct to behave selfishly and and instinct to behave altruistically. Put on top of that our ability to reason

It is called cognitive dissonance.
Many theists here employ this. Their arguments are being shown false, yet they keep on pontificating the same dogma drivel. Am convinced they know they are wrong, but found some justification to justify it.

I think that is why my two opponents (well, there are 3, Danmark is using tactics to signal his opposition) refuses to acknowledge that science has no clear answer if the Golden Rule exists as something observable/testable. If my 3 opponents do not concede that they lost their debate with me, then they are merely saying they are in disagreement with science. And to justify this, they provide irrelevant and biased based science.

We have a classic example (evidence) here that this Golden Rule can not exist. In fact, that is the only relevant thing my 3 opponents are demonstrating. And the irony is, I do not even think they get it.