Moral objective values...

whisperit · Post by **whisperit** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:02 pm

[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 · Post by **instantc** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:50 am

Artie wrote: if we value things we value survival.

This doesn't seem to follow.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:56 am

instantc wrote:
Artie wrote:if we value things we value survival.
This doesn't seem to follow.

If you value your kids surely you want to survive as long as possible and see them grow up don't you? If you value your wife surely you want both of you to survive as long as possible don't you?

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:04 am

Artie wrote:
instantc wrote:
Artie wrote:if we value things we value survival.
This doesn't seem to follow.
If you value your kids surely you want to survive as long as possible and see them grow up don't you?

Again, I don't value survival, but survival is a necessary precondition for the things I do value.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:45 am

survival is a necessary precondition for the things I do value.

Excuse the butt in, but that can't be whole truth. There are are circumstances when you would sacrifice your survival for what you value - your children is perhaps a too obvious example, but people also sacrifice their survival for a principle, such as a soldier who dies in war he believes in, or even a suicide bomber. So I can't go along with survival being a necessary precondtion of what you value - only of some of the things you value, and probably not of the things you value most.

Survival is valued if and when it is a precondition of what is truly valued. When survival conflict with a higher value, survival is sacrificed so it cannot be the ultimate object of morality or behaviour.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:51 am

instantc wrote:Again, I don't value survival, but survival is a necessary precondition for the things I do value.

The things you do value make you want to survive. The end result of you valuing things is survival.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:07 am

keithprosser3 wrote:Excuse the butt in, but that can't be whole truth. There are are circumstances when you would sacrifice your survival for what you value - your children is perhaps a too obvious example,

It's not about your survival in particular it's about the survival of your genome which is why you got kids in the first place. You sacrifice your life for your kids since it means the survival of your offspring and the continuation of your genome and the species.

but people also sacrifice their survival for a principle, such as a soldier who dies in war he believes in, or even a suicide bomber.

Of course they do. Just like bees will sacrifice themselves for the hive. It's simply the way evolution programmed us to sacrifice the survival of a few for the survival of many.

Survival is valued if and when it is a precondition of what is truly valued. When survival conflict with a higher value, survival is sacrificed so it cannot be the ultimate object of morality or behaviour.

Evolution works on populations you only seem to be able to think in terms of single individuals. What you call "higher value" is simply doing what a bee does and what is programmed into us by evolution, ensuring that your genome and as many members of the species survive as possible.

When you say "When survival conflict with a higher value", what you are really saying is simply "when your survival conflict with the survival of your genome and the continuation of the species or the survival of many other members of the species".

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:02 am

Artie wrote:
instantc wrote:Again, I don't value survival, but survival is a necessary precondition for the things I do value.
The things you do value make you want to survive. The end result of you valuing things is survival.

That's my argument, there's nothing valuable in survival as such, but it's a necessity for anything that matters, apart from certain exceptions that KP observed where the two are not connected. Brilliant, we seem to be in agreement!

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:07 am

You only seem to be able to think in terms of single individuals

That is most unfair, old chap. I have been looking through the last few pages and I see nothing in your posts that indicate you were talking about anything other than personal survival. It was because you - and instantc - were couching the argument in terms of personal survival that I made my post to point out that personal survival was not the basis of morality or behaviour.

But I am glad to see you were talking about genomic survival all along after all, so carry on, don't mind me.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:12 am

instantc wrote:That's my argument, there's nothing valuable in survival as such, but it's a necessity for anything that matters, apart from certain exceptions that KP observed where the two are not connected. Brilliant, we seem to be in agreement!

Sorry but KP didn't mention any exceptions. You simply don't seem to understand that evolution works on populations and when you give your life for your children both you and evolution work for the continuation of your genome and the species. I have no idea why it is impossible for you to understand that survival isn't just about you and if your survival is in the way of continuing your genome and the survival of your children or the survival of many others your survival is not a priority.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:18 am

keithprosser3 wrote:But I am glad to see you were talking about genomic survival all along after all, so carry on, don't mind me.

Oh. So you understood all the way that when you say "When survival conflict with a higher value", you are really saying "when your survival conflict with the survival of your genome and the continuation of the species or the survival of many other members of the species". Good. By the way, no offense intended.