Moral objective values...
Moderator: Moderators
Moral objective values...
Post #1[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]
Post #591
OK. The Golden Rule is the same as reciprocity and reciprocity has been studied extensively by evolutionary biologists. "Reciprocity in evolutionary biology refers to mechanisms whereby the evolution of cooperative or altruistic behaviour may be favoured by the probability of future mutual interactions" ... "Three types of reciprocity have been studied extensively" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(evolution) so there is your "evidence that this golden rule exists as something biologists can test/observe as anything evolutionarily." You are now shown wrong. Be happy. I am through with you.JohnA wrote:The point is that he had not lived up to his burden of proof. That tells new he is rejecting known knowledge in that there is no evidence that this golden rule exists as something biologists can test/observe as anything evolutionarily.
Am happy to be shown wrong.
Post #592
We coveted this already. Obscurantism is not the answer.Artie wrote:OK. The Golden Rule is the same as reciprocity and reciprocity has been studied extensively by evolutionary biologists. "Reciprocity in evolutionary biology refers to mechanisms whereby the evolution of cooperative or altruistic behaviour may be favoured by the probability of future mutual interactions" ... "Three types of reciprocity have been studied extensively" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(evolution) so there is your "evidence that this golden rule exists as something biologists can test/observe as anything evolutionarily." You are now shown wrong. Be happy. I am through with you.JohnA wrote:The point is that he had not lived up to his burden of proof. That tells new he is rejecting known knowledge in that there is no evidence that this golden rule exists as something biologists can test/observe as anything evolutionarily.
Am happy to be shown wrong.
You have no evidence.
Have you ever lied? Are any person perfect, never done anything wrong to another person? Are all humans faulty then?
Ask yourself, if you can answer that yourself, why would you not accept then that you would realise that this golden rules is just wishful thinking.
You have not lived up to your burden of proof. Deal with it.
Post #593
My opponents own reference to this golden rules says VERY CLEARLY:
"This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion. "
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Firstly, it refers to it as a concept.
Secondly, NONE of the perspectives above are science. None.
The same link says:
"There has been research published arguing that some 'sense' of fair play and the Golden Rule may be stated and rooted in terms of neuroscientific and neuroethical principles."
Above says 'some', meaning not all. And been argued (not accepted),. says 'may be stated', meaning it is speculative.
It also makes no mention of any thing accepted by science (biology).
What more is needed?
Nobody can present any peer reviewed scientific journals that were accepted by the scientific community to make any conclusions. Furthermore, if it's quite obvious that most, it's not all humans, will or have broken this rule in some form or another. Therefore that is evidence that this rule can not be explained in full by biological evolution. This golden rule is a mere concept, related/similar to blaming the Rock god when a stone falls on your head.
"This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion. "
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Firstly, it refers to it as a concept.
Secondly, NONE of the perspectives above are science. None.
The same link says:
"There has been research published arguing that some 'sense' of fair play and the Golden Rule may be stated and rooted in terms of neuroscientific and neuroethical principles."
Above says 'some', meaning not all. And been argued (not accepted),. says 'may be stated', meaning it is speculative.
It also makes no mention of any thing accepted by science (biology).
What more is needed?
Nobody can present any peer reviewed scientific journals that were accepted by the scientific community to make any conclusions. Furthermore, if it's quite obvious that most, it's not all humans, will or have broken this rule in some form or another. Therefore that is evidence that this rule can not be explained in full by biological evolution. This golden rule is a mere concept, related/similar to blaming the Rock god when a stone falls on your head.
Post #594
That is because you referenced http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(evolution) which deals with reciprocity in evolution and biology. I know I said I was through with you but this was something I just had to make people aware of. At least go to the right page before drawing your conclusions...JohnA wrote:It also makes no mention of any thing accepted by science (biology). What more is needed?
Post #595
You are refusing to answer my questions.Artie wrote:That is because you referenced http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(evolution) which deals with reciprocity in evolution and biology. I know I said I was through with you but this was something I just had to make people aware of. At least go to the right page before drawing your conclusions...JohnA wrote:It also makes no mention of any thing accepted by science (biology). What more is needed?
Have got ever lied?
Do you know of any person on earth that has never deviated from this golden rule?
We both know why you do not want to answer this, don't we.
Let me understand your logic:
you are rejecting the ethic of reprocity (your link, not my link, rejecting Everthing written about the Golden rule that you submitted earlier) to submit something that we already concluded is not the Golden rule as evidence for the very thing (golden rule) that you now reject.
No wonder your opinion is that you have no opinion on a god/gods.
Post #597
I'm not so sure about this, I think that being alive is a necessary condition for anything that matters, but being alive as such isn't worth much now is it?
This is because a healthy mind in this context is defined as one that doesn't have suicidal intentions. No true scotsman...NoisForm wrote:This is merely observational - all healthy life appears to strive to live
I have to disagree. I simply cannot see anything 'good' in survival as such. Although it is a precondition for everything that matters, survival isn't worth pursuing for its own sake in my opinion. This is why I find Artie's posts about morality so absurd. An objective observer might be tempted to say that our main function is to survive and reproduce, but as subjective agents you and I both know better than this.NoisForm wrote: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?
Post #598
What a strange suggestion. If there had been things we valued more than survival and reproduction, if our main function had differed from surviving and reproducing we wouldn't be here in the first place but perished doing what we valued more... of course morality starts with existence, survival and reproduction, life being good, death being bad, existence good, non-existence bad.instantc wrote:I have to disagree. I simply cannot see anything 'good' in survival as such. Although it is a precondition for everything that matters, survival isn't worth pursuing for its own sake in my opinion. This is why I find Artie's posts about morality so absurd. An objective observer might be tempted to say that our main function is to survive and reproduce, but as subjective agents you and I both know better than this.
Post #599
I certainly do not value survival as such for the sake of survival, nor does anybody I've talked to about this. I'm sorry Artie, I don't find your argument about "our" values convincing at all. We don't strive to live because we value survival, we strive to live because survival is a precondition to the things we in fact do value.Artie wrote:What a strange suggestion. If there had been things we valued more than survival and reproduction, if our main function had differed from surviving and reproducing we wouldn't be here in the first place but perished doing what we valued more... of course morality starts with existence, survival and reproduction, life being good, death being bad, existence good, non-existence bad.instantc wrote:I have to disagree. I simply cannot see anything 'good' in survival as such. Although it is a precondition for everything that matters, survival isn't worth pursuing for its own sake in my opinion. This is why I find Artie's posts about morality so absurd. An objective observer might be tempted to say that our main function is to survive and reproduce, but as subjective agents you and I both know better than this.
Post #600
Well, yes of course if we didn't have things we valued we would have no reason to stay alive would we... if we value things we value survival. Valuing things help us survive and reproduce.instantc wrote:I certainly do not value survival as such for the sake of survival, nor does anybody I've talked to about this. I'm sorry Artie, I don't find your argument about "our" values convincing at all. We don't strive to live because we value survival, we strive to live because survival is a precondition to the things we in fact do value.
