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]

[NoisForm]

A very nice post. But you are just avoiding your burden of proof....

Wow. You're ability to ignore absolutely everything, frankly, astonishes me. I've snipped, well, everything, since it is largely incoherent, and entirely irrelevant (again) to everything that I have posted. Thanks to the other members who actually bothered to read and comprehend what I presented.

But, I am no longer amused by this, so we are done. I might suggest a course in reading comprehension. I leave with you're own quote - possibly the most ironic thing I've seen in all of 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."

Couldn't have said it better! Best of luck.

[NoisForm]

Why is survival of the species important?

Apologies for a rather long post here, but I find this question interesting, though I'm not sure it's answerable in a way that would satisfy some. The base function of any life form, it appears, is to live. This necessarily precedes even the function 'to reproduce/pass on genes', as it must, even if it serves only to do so.

For this reason I take 'the function of life is to live' to be axiomatic - I find nothing that could precede or 'explain' it, as it were. It appears to be a 'brute fact', or truism. This is merely observational - all healthy life appears to strive to live, at the very least until that second bit - reproduction - is accomplished. If this weren't the case, none of us would be here to discuss it.

The attaching of terms like 'good' to said survival can appear peculiar, I would agree, but I'm not sure what else good might mean? In our own cases, we do seem to equate our 'proper function', with 'good'. I've no problem with this. The line between function and purpose are blurred. I would argue, the two are largely synonymous, at least when it comes to ourselves.

I agree it can appear quirky that we label it 'good', when we don't do so with other 'properly functioning' things. We generally don't view it as 'good' that a rock falls (obeying gravity as it should), or that a hammer fulfills its function by pounding a nail (perhaps we should?).

But when it comes to ourselves, we have a vested self interest. We happen to be sentient beings that can observe our own function, and evaluate it. It is innate that we are desirous of our continued existence, and the determination of what is 'good and bad' towards that end seems quite natural, even unavoidable, to me.

What would an alternative be? The only one I think there is, is death - nonexistence. I suppose we have collectively 'decided' (and I use that term very loosely), that existence is a plus - that it trumps nonexistence. Anyone that would disagree with this, I would argue, would not be alive to do so, so we probably don't have to worry about them.

Really, if one cannot start there, and concede that existence is desirable, then I would agree that no moral system can possibly be built. Nothing, in fact, could be built. One would immediately dissolve into the most incoherent form of nihilistic solipsism imaginable I believe. A quick bullet to the head would be the only course of action at that point. But then, what would be the impetus for such an act?

There, one would be 'deciding' that nonexistence is more desirable ('good') than existence. Those are the only two options available to us - existence or nonexistence. All considerations of morality (and everything else) begins with this. Is it somehow easier to justify nonexistence? For me, and all other currently living beings, it is not (thus our continued existence so far).

I believe we largely if not universally agree that self-extermination for its own sake, is an indication of an unhealthy organism - one that, for what ever reason, has succumb to the ultimate malfunction.

Again, I don't know that this can satisfy some, especially those looking for something 'outside' of what we observe - a reason beyond the reason, as it were. I consider that search unreasonable and futile - it actually doesn't make sense to me. It's much like saying that 2+2=4, and having someone ask..."but why does it equal 4?". This is likely why many insert a 'god' - to help with this angsty confusion.

It, for me, suffices; The 'proper function of life' appears at base to be, to live. To that end, things that tend toward life generally, I label 'good', and those that tend away from life generally, I label as 'bad'. This is of course, an incredibly simplistic statement, as I think it needs to be 'at the beginning'. Much like one might start with "A=A" at the beginning of the construction of a logical argument, I take existence itself to be the starting point for any system of morality. How else could one proceed, really? I'm afraid I don't see some larger mystery behind or beyond that to discover, if that's what you're looking for.

[keithprosser3]

...saying that 2+2=4, and having someone ask..."but why does it equal 4?"

So why does it equal 4?

[Artie]

...saying that 2+2=4, and having someone ask..."but why does it equal 4?"

So why does it equal 4?

We don't know the exact conditions that led to the manifestation of this particular physical universe in which it equals 4. If physicists did know they could have explained why 2+2=4 here. It just does because of conditions unknown to us at this time.

[Nickman]

[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]

I submit that there are no objective moral values. We only have morals that people agree on based on individual values of life and liberty. If there were only one person on the planet, there would be no such thing as morals and ethics. Add 1 or 2 more people changes this. Now you have morals. Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you. Help me and I help you. Since each person values their own life, murder seems like it is objective. However, it is subjective because we all value our own lives. Hence, people cannot differentiate between this subjective stance and that which they deem as objective. We all just happen to agree that we want to live. Every society sees things differently, but all of them value human life. This isn't evidence of objective morals. It is evidence that humans value their lives and have made rules to preserve their lives.

Sympathy and empathy also come into play. Because we have the ability to sympathize and empathize with others, we tend to take care of those around us. This is for the majority, but not all.

Objective morals implies that there is a set rule or moral, whether deemed by a lawgiver or not. For this I refer you back to my example of only having one human on the planet.

[Nickman]

...saying that 2+2=4, and having someone ask..."but why does it equal 4?"

So why does it equal 4?

We don't know the exact conditions that led to the manifestation of this particular physical universe in which it equals 4. If physicists did know they could have explained why 2+2=4 here. It just does because of conditions unknown to us at this time.

We do know why 2+2=4. We made up the naming of 2 and 4. We do this by placing two objects together (two corn husks) and then we add two more, we call that 4. Numbering is man made. We have realized how numbering can make calculations we never imagined. Numbering is the product of humans applying a quantity to something (corn husks). It is not a phenomenon.

[Artie]

Objective morals implies that there is a set rule or moral, whether deemed by a lawgiver or not. For this I refer you back to my example of only having one human on the planet.

Or no humans at all. Chimps for example also have a sense of right and wrong and will punish those who don't behave correctly according to the rules of the flock. Vampire bats will share food with starving roost mates. Bees will give their life for the hive. Nature is full of examples of behavior if performed by a human would be called the morally correct thing to do. It is no less "moral" if performed by some other creature than a human. It is the same behavior.

[Artie]

We do know why 2+2=4. We made up the naming of 2 and 4. We do this by placing two objects together (two corn husks) and then we add two more, we call that 4. Numbering is man made. We have realized how numbering can make calculations we never imagined. Numbering is the product of humans applying a quantity to something (corn husks). It is not a phenomenon.

It isn't about numbering. It is about why 2+2=4. Why is the number pi 3.14? It's not about the numbering it's about why it got the value we call 3.14 and not the value we call 3.16.

[JohnA]

I am and have only debated if the golden rule exists.
Read my post 2 posts above.

This is a known tactic where a Debater will try and play ignorant about the topic being debated. This is especially true when they are not meeting their burden.

How many times have I asked him and that other guy to define their claim clearly?
Stating 'the golden rule exists' is not enough. He needs to say if it is built in from the start or has it evolved. Who does or apply to (humans, animals, specific humans, etc. ).

They will not state their claim anymore. They know they lost.

Correct Artie? If not, then state your claim, state your arguments and evidence.
Same for the other Debater.

If you still refuse, then just Answer:
Does the Golden rule exists as wishful thinking, only a concept (rule of thumb), not something that science says has been shown to exist, its only a guideline and humans break this rule all the time worth no known Conquest?

Come on Artie. You have the burden of proof.

[JohnA]

A very nice post. But you are just avoiding your burden of proof....

Wow. You're ability to ignore absolutely everything, frankly, astonishes me. I've snipped, well, everything, since it is largely incoherent, and entirely irrelevant (again) to everything that I have posted. Thanks to the other members who actually bothered to read and comprehend what I presented.

But, I am no longer amused by this, so we are done. I might suggest a course in reading comprehension. I leave with you're own quote - possibly the most ironic thing I've seen in all of 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."

Couldn't have said it better! Best of luck.

Yep.
You did not live up to your burden.
And for that your blame me?

You may as well have claim that the bible god exists and offer me the bible for evidence. That is rubbish. But that is exactly what you did.
Gee man. And you are upset with me.

But you will keep on pontificating that this golden rules exists, will you not. Even when you have zero evidence for it. You are merely making a statement that you reject scientific knowledge.

Game over. Another one bites the dust.
Good evening.